I went to the super-market today. I was doing normal shopping when I encountered a product from Israel. The product was a food thing called 'salted matzo thins'. I decided to buy it, because i'd rather Israel be supported by choice (through the private sector). When I got home, I noticed on the package it says 'not for passover use' and 'challah has been taken'. I don't know what the fuck challah is, and all I know about passover is its some kind of religious nonsense. It got me thinking... I should invade Poland, turn every cross upside-down and while i'm there, use these matzo thins for passover.

When I told my Bulgarian confidant Teodora about my plan to invade Poland (which, at the time, did not include eating matzo thins), she warned me against it. But what she doesn't know, is that I am powered by Pentagrams, and have been demonically trained in the art of Ninjutsu.

You should always remember, protecting freedom is accomplished by killing freedom.

I have an IQ of 160. It is not the highest. The difference between me and higher IQ's is that I put mine to good use. Sometimes I wonder, after becoming impatient with the idiots I have no choice but to live with, how can these morons make my life better instead of worse?

There is no group worse than the religious. Maybe you have heard, an abortion doctor was killed by the 'pro-life' crowd. I thank them, and am glad for the doctor's sacrifice. Now everyone knows, perfectly clearly, anti-abortion advocates are nothing more than religious fanatics (which makes all anti-abortion legislation illegal by way of the 1st amendment). Religious people 'believe' they are clever. If people think the legislation isn't religious, maybe they'll accept it despite its lack of Constitutionality.

Conservatives, the second worst... they can't see two millimeters in front of their faces. They revel in exploitation, only to realize the very next day, when the exploited realize what's happened, they will murder the exploiters.

Liberals, not as bad as the rest. They pride themselves on being absolutely horrible and terrible in every way, but not as horrible and terrible as the alternative. Hitler also had good intentions.

Black people... in the rational world, African-Americans do a fair amount of harm. In the world we live in, compared to everyone else, they're not so bad.

White people, who have perpetrated on my ancestors multiple genocides, and are exclusively responsible for the horrors of Christianity, still have much to answer for. I have little tolerance for their aggressive stupidity. It is only through their aggression they have managed to evolve.

Arabs.. no complaints. The foolish white man builds an enormous target, instigates a cause for vengeance, then blames Arabia for striking the target. Worse yet, the white man wants to rebuild the target, this time even bigger... to prove he has an erect penis.

Native Americans, whom I dearly love, stay wisely hidden, out of everything.

Jews - while I am part Jewish (and also Cherokee), I have mixed feelings. Israeli's fight like the white man, to show the erectness of the peni'. They have forsaken their Middle Eastern roots in favor of white aggression. Today, they have fought for 60 years with their neighbors, ensuring they can only be viewed as a detriment. If they worked for the benefit of their neighborhood, at this stage, they would be welcomed.

And this is the world we live in. Only nurturing can improve the natural condition. Almost no one, even though they are born with inferior IQ's, are willing to exercise their intellect. Your IQ will never be close to mine, but like a professional athlete compared to an amateur compared to a non-athlete, when you exercise, improvement does occur.

I love battlegrounds, because it is lovable. I cast my spells and use my abilities and watch the pretty twinkles with my eyes. And then some fucking cocksuckers quadruple team me 'cause they're pussies. I wonder if battlegrounds would be better by having a warcraft 3 element, where someone plays from the RTS perspective? Battlegrounds is ok, really... far more similar to fps gaming. There is CTF, but it has two flags like all versions of CTF played by people who suck.

There are some problems with BG. All the games are pickup games (far as I can tell). A lot of games are uneven by player quality, and some are uneven by number of competitors. In many of the Alterac Valley games i've played, Alliance has had 10 more players than Horde. Why not put a relativity cap on player-numbers, to ensure things are even?

Maybe BG could be decent in a clan format. Strategies in pickup games are always below sub-standard. People don't follow directions, there is no cohesion (you're all familiar i'm sure).

Hard to say if there could be any spectator appeal. I don't know if there is a way to play BG in a clan format, or with some kind of GTV-support. Video games are one of the most profitable industries already. Imagine what it will be when pro-gaming achieves success.

Battlegrounds - it's not bad when compared to the rest of WoW. It seems most of the game is a failure. Three-quarters of the quests only make sense when many players are doing them simultaneously. That functioned fine when the game was new, but today, except for the high level areas, the entire game-world is empty. It is like wasted space (which, in business terms, means wasted money).

If you haven't tried battlegrounds, i'd recommend it. Since I discovered BG, I haven't had any real desire to play any other part of WoW. Arena might also be good, but my ping puts me at such a disadvantage, I haven't been able to give it a honest try.

What if you combined dial-up with satellite? A large portion of everything done online is better done by dial-up. Pings are better, loading anything small like text is better. On the other hand, loading or downloading anything large is better with satellite.

Because the satellite and the dial-up work together, there would be no need for two phone lines. If a call happened, the satellite could still access the internet (alternatively, all phone calls could be handled through VoIP).

The two types of internet compliment one other... you could say they make up for each others weaknesses. The expense would be roughly identical (it doesn't get cheaper than dial-up). And, technologically speaking, all it would take to build and deploy is a new modem. They could even be mailed to people... everyone can plug in a few wires.

So my question is, why not?

I don't know specifically why I am bored. Maybe it's because I can't get a decent internet connection? Maybe it's because one of the things I like about video games is their easy-going nature. You can play them when you want and stop when you want. With esports, it's like integrating the worst aspects of sports (for me anyway), with video games. It becomes like a military operation, where you have to practice at a set time and play your matches exactly when they are scheduled. Or maybe it's because I can't get online?

There could be other reasons. Quake 3 is 10 years old now. Quake 4 was decent, but everyone quit playing, forcing revertion to a 10 year-old game. In video games, things change quickly. It's always been that way. From 8-bit systems, to 16, to 32, to whatever the fuck we have today. Yet here we are, still playing a 10 year-old game.

Maybe it isn't the game, it's the gameplay. We have DM and CTF, still in their basic forms. There is no real evolution, no real change, only minor modifications. Changes are like rate of weapon fire and damage per-projectile. The changes are never anything to create a large adjustment. Merely minor tweaks, to further 'perfect' the 10 year-old game. DM and CTF are even older. DM goes back all the way to Wolfenstein 3D.

I suppose you could say DM has 'evolved' over the years. But real evolution sometimes makes major changes. The evolution we see in Quake is more like a lion sharpening its claws. We don't see turtles going from no-shell to shell. We don't see humans going from no-tools to tools. In the end, we're stuck with basically the same thing we had 15 years ago (with better graphics, which only superficial people really care about).

If I had to say why I am bored with esports, I would probably include all of these factors. There may be more. Maybe it's the coverage. There isn't exactly a good method of following leagues and ladders. The only decent coverage is arranged for lan tournaments. As we all know, lan organizations continue dying. Leagues and ladders can be exciting, why doesn't anyone cover them?

It could be more than a simple matter of no coverage. Maybe it's the way coverage is practiced. We have esreality to bring us occasional news, demos and possibly GTV IP's. It's kind of bureaucratic though. It could be a lot easier. If each league and ladder had a section to let you know exactly when the scheduled matches are (the one's with GTV), and you could simply click on the link when the match-time arrives (allowing the computer to do the rest for you), all you'd have to do is check the times and click the link. The way it is now, you have to search through a potentially convoluted arrangement of news posts and then you have to go through an arbitrary practice of copying the GTV link, opening Quake, and pasting it into the console. After you're in the game, you have to adjust all kinds of console settings to get a decent experience. And after all that hassle, you still have to open shoutcast in a separate program, and, attempt to sync the shoutcast with the game.

Needless to say, esports has a long way to go before it can claim true professionalism. In the mean-time, what are we left with (besides a lot of work)? Maybe boredom isn't the right word.

Ok, check it out ISP's... I live 1/4 of a mile off the main-road. Comcast will deliver broadband to the main-road. Why not install the modem there, then use a Wireless-N router, repeaters and directional antennas to make up for the 1/4 mile difference? You could probably use solar-panels to supply all the power needed.

How can current drug laws be validated? People attempt validation through tales of fiction; through cause and effect errors; through discrimination, prejudice and superstition. Republicans, in their fascist Christianity, believe drugs are the devil and the only way to defeat the devil is through government.

Today, there are no worse people than Republicans. They are filled with hatred. Any intelligent creature knows, hatred is idiotic. Hatred is a primitive brain-function fit for animals. Hatred is not reason, it is personal opinion. Just because you hate something, doesn't mean it should be tortured and killed.

The reality is, there is no validation for current drug laws. They are completely wrong. There is also no validation for Republicans, who are equally wrong. You see Republicans today, spewing their wild hatred towards liberals and libertarians. Soon, they'll be dead... never to return. I enjoy watching their acts of desperation. As they pit themselves against liberals and libertarians, they ensure their death will come swiftly. Honest Abe, i'm afraid your political party today is nothing better than a horrific irony.

I'll try writing a video game column soon... video games are just so fucking boring atm. Maybe i'll make up some bullshit, 'cause what's real is too boring to bother with.

Can a perpetual-motion/over-unity machine be created using a pendulum design coupled with magnets? Gravity is doing most of the work. Magnets can provide the small amount of extra force necessary.

If not over-unity, what about a human-powered generator? If 75% of the motion is done by gravity, could a human-powered generator produce useful energy?

Is it any better than theism? Either one is a matter of belief. Where are these facts proving God does not exist? I personally have no problem with 'God', I have a problem with religion. Religion is a set of beliefs involving a God. Instead of that crap, why not have a set of facts and truths involving a God, which wouldn't be atheism or theism? Instead of asking, "What does God (a.k.a. the religion that enslaved you), say about such and such issue?", you should ask what the issue says about God. You should study the world for what it is, which you can do through science, and then ask what do the scientific truths say about God? What does gravity say about God? What does evolution say about God? What does homosexuality and abortion say about God?

Religion is shit. I'm not an atheist or a theist. Maybe there is no word for what I am. If you separate God from religion, what is the point of either atheism or theism?

In the United States, everyone is obsessed with having and mowing lawns. This ridiculous process, designed to please the eye, is a waste of fuel, a contributor to greenhouse gases, and a waste of space.

The average person would rather mow their lawn than build a vegetable garden. It is easier and faster, if not also cheaper. But what if an industry was created, where you, the average person, was payed by a corporation, for the simple use of your property? They would do all the farming themselves. All you would do is collect a paycheck.

In addition to having more food in the world, we would have less pollution, more fuel, and an industry with every motivation to invent better ways of farming, in different diverse environments.

Women, they wear lies all over their bodies. Apparently, now there is a new piece of lie-apparel - the fake wedding-ring. It's an excellent idea, because women are too chicken to simply tell someone 'no', and women love to lie (how Christian of them), and women will buy anything.

I'm not Biblical. Far as i'm concerned, the 10 commandments can go fuck themselves. Still though, what is the point of female lies? I don't understand the notion lying is nicer than truth. If the person knows you're lying, it is definitely not nicer, and it is pointless.

Humans like to play dress-up. They (we) always make things seem different than they really are. In the case of clothing, there is a matter of climate protection. Even though clothing does obscure some of the reality, it does so in a necessary fashion. Women though, dress in crazy clothes, for the purpose of lying.

When considering evolution, we can clearly determine female lies will become extinct. When men fall prey to female lies, they develop protections against further victimizations. Before long, lies themselves will be impossible. The species will develop a total immunity.

Women, the ones who are unwise, do you think a different course of action may be called for?

In slightly related news, black people in Rochester N.Y., much like Darwin's finches, have evolved to survive solely on Popeye's chicken.

I don't know if this fight will ever happen, but if it does, who do you think will win? I'll go with Floyd Mayweather. As I see it, movement will decide the fight. Look at the way they both move. Pacquiao wouldn't stand a chance.

Everyone wants to get high. They want to climb the highest mountain. They want to achieve the highest award. They want to gain the highest office. But why exactly do people want to get high? Is it religion? Do they think they'll find heaven? Instead of getting high, why not get low?

The fact is, we've gone to the moon but we haven't reached the bottom of the ocean. Heaven is not in the sky, people. Hell is not at the bottom of the ocean.

Condoleezza Rice plead guilty this week, to torture. Her defense now is that the President doesn't have to abide by the law. If the President is Adolf Hitler, it is ok to order a holocaust. Poor little Condi... people once said she was a good girl. Often times, we find the highest people are somehow simultaneously the lowest.

High and low, you'd think we were playing roulette. The world is three-dimensional, yet still, most can only think in two-dimensions. East and west... if you keeping going east, you'll reach the west, or you'll be killed by the atmosphere, which is heaven, apparently.

I will say one thing for the aliens who wrote the Bible. If we want to survive, eventually, we will have to go up. As we all know, suns explode. If we are still here when our sun explodes, we will die.

The main argument against male/female integration is the simple difference of physique. Women are physically 'weaker'. In a fight, the average man beats the average woman. That's understandable, and I doubt too many people would argue. But what about other aspects of sports, where there is no 'playing'?

In professional sports, how many female owners are there?

Female coaches?

Referee's or umpire's?

In whatever sports you follow, do you know of a single woman in any of these positions? How about the GM position? Female sports do not count, of course.

If there are any females in these types of positions, there can't be more than a couple. Why not have female head-coaches? They don't need to be physical. Why not a female umpire in baseball? Some people, lawyers, might enjoy a nice trial... maybe a little prejudice trial, or discrimination. Sexism is not accepted in modern American society. Are women being oppressed? Are they uninterested? Do they somehow lack the necessary abilities?

I can't imagine they lack the abilities. How can being a referee be so incredibly difficult?

Without question, there are more men interested in sports than women, but there should be plenty enough women to fill at least a few pro-sports positions. If you do the math of interested men vs. interested women, shouldn't there be a proportionate amount of female umpires to male?

You tell me, why do you think there are no women in these types of pro-sports positions?

Let's say it's too late... we can't stop the icecaps from melting. Will the increased sunlight somehow evaporate all the water? How will the atmosphere be affected? If we don't lose the water, could we move underground? It should be cooler down there. Utilizing gravity, we could efficiently move water and other resources to our dwellings. With the extra sunlight, solar-panels should provide more than enough electricity to power whatever we need.

Don't you love columnists? Let's make something clear... humans are not social creatures, humans are group creatures. We group based on necessity. It is a definite misconception humans are social. This misconception comes from deceit of vision. It is a superficiality. On the surface, there is no difference between group and social. In reality, the unknowing human groups based on instinct. If you are not part of a group, survival becomes difficult if not impossible. Grouping based on instinct is primitive and should cease. Instead, we should have self-control, in that we understand the necessity of the group-structure, and knowingly agree to a position within the structure.

Self-control is not the same as self-reliance. With self-reliance, except for what you rely on, you can be controlled. With self-control, you do not blame inanimate objects for your mistakes, or for the errors of others. You control your actions, regardless of the group-opinion, which could be wrong. The group is not always right. If you think for yourself, a.k.a., control yourself, you can recognize when the group is wrong. Self-control and the group-structure are both necessary for survival. There is no conflict between the two.

Too many people think in today's terms. When you fail to consider evolution, you fail to accurately consider the future.

If it is insignificant, ignore it. If it is important, you shouldn't believe anyway, you should know.

I went to a fast-food 'restaurant' today. We went through the drive-thru, as redundant as that might sound. I was with someone you might call a 'liberal'. The people who take your order, they ask you if you'd like to try such and such whatever. She feels so bad about telling them no, like they give a cunts ass if she says yes or no. Their employers require them to ask the question to everyone. Maybe it's a catholic thing. These crazy religious people think up is good and down is evil.

Anyway, there was a long-line... while I was sitting there, I had an idea. What if, instead of waiting like a vegetable, you could check out the menu and order while you wait? A lot of new cars have computer screens inside of them. Some are even touch-screen. The menu could be automatically sent to your car, you could order everything, and even pay through a credit or debit card. It could use a simple computer/wireless internet delivery method.

The laws on this issue are bullshit for the following reasons:

1. They are predicated on the fallacy a young person cannot A. Truly consent and B. Will never gain the means to consent (through evolution).

2. All people mature at the same rate.

3. The purpose of sex is reproduction. If the person can reproduce, they are clearly old enough to have sex. You could argue the young person is not old enough to care responsibly for a child, but these laws mean an older person is also the parent and therefore should be capable of responsible parenting.

4. Young people are the responsibility of themselves and their parents/guardians. It is detrimentally unnatural for government to play the parent.

5. The penalties are far too severe. They are clearly un-Constitutional. This isn't a simple case of fines. These penalties can be 99 years in prison, for having consensual sex. These laws are quite possibly the most un-Constitutional laws we have.

6. That hurt is some kind of immoral or sinful device, when in reality, it is an essential part of evolution.

The laws we have, which demand everything must have 'consent', deter evolution from taking place. These laws stagnate the law-abiding population, making it so the only people who truly evolve are criminals.

My mother just returned from France. She spent three weeks there. For some reason, whenever she goes to Europe, she wants to bring me back weapons and torture equipment. When she goes to South America, she brings me shirts bearing the brands of local beers. This time, she came back with chocolates and a dagger. The blade is 8 inches long; the hilt is 5. It's a fine weapon. One I could easily kill many people with.

Some people think I shouldn't collect weapons and torture equipment. Tell it to the Chinese schoolgirls. Seriously though, it runs in my family. There's nothing wrong with killing everyone.

America, the land of yanks. Don't be surprised if I take my army of Chinese schoolgirls to Seattle, where we will take out the Japanese schoolgirls. It's time to end this feud. Maggie will just have to switch sides. Natalie can be my second-in-command, which has nothing to do with her ethnicity, I just like her and know she can handle the job. We can do this. Japanese schoolgirls, consider yourselves through.

You see, the Japanese schoolgirls are unorganized. They won't stand a chance.

Politicians are such children sometimes. They want you to be their friends. If you're mean to them, they'll try to hurt you. What you can do, like say there's a law you want removed, you can piss off every politician, then act like you love the law you want gone. It's a simple matter of reverse psychology. Politicians are a bunch of dumb orangutans like everyone else (excluding myself, Maggie, Natalie and the Chinese schoolgirls). You hurt their feelings, they'll try to hurt you in return. If they think they can hurt you by removing the law you support wholeheartedly, they'll get rid of that fucker.

As you can see, it is far too complex for the common politician.

Religion wants you to think 'bad' things happen to you because of some kind of sin you've committed, or because of a supernatural force. Like a 'sin' you committed five years ago is the reason today you were punished. They want you to think these things so you will relinquish self-control. They want you to stop controlling yourself, so they can control you.

I've been all over the America's. I could live in any of the places i've been. If I had to choose between them all, i'd probably pick San Francisco.

I love New Orleans. Unlike some people, I love where I come from. Even though San Francisco does not, in any way possible, have better food, I would choose it over my hometown. I love the Chinese people there; the schoolgirls who give me looks of love.... or sexuality, whatever it might be. The marijuana laws, which, according to my primate brother, amount to a mere fine of $20. The place is incredible. I could sit there forever, in the middle of the night, looking at the tall buildings against the sky's background.

In New Orleans, everything is flat. The city is below sea-level. The highest hill is 27 feet tall. When I lived there, I lived in the ghetto. The windows were covered with steel-bars. Sometimes, you could hear what sounded like firecrackers, but were actually people shooting each other with guns. You could look out your window and see them, with their ski-masks on, chasing each other around, firing off wasted ammunition rounds. Maybe, eventually, the cops would show up, after someone had been shot in the leg.

In San Francisco, everything is different. The most trouble you get is some neighbor bitching about the sound you're making from your awesome ass party.

If there is a conclusion, it will be when I move to San Francisco, or when you visit, to learn what a great place it is.

Let's look at the differences between a weed-smoker and a non-weed-smoker.

The weed-smoker wakes up, showers, eats breakfast, goes to work, does their job as well as anyone, goes home, smokes a joint, watches television, eats dinner, goes to sleep.

The non-weed-smoker wakes up, showers, eats breakfast, goes to work, does their job as well as anyone, goes home, watches television, eats dinner, goes to sleep.

Why should the weed-smoking part warrant fines, imprisonment and a permanent criminal record?

Government is tyranny; law is oppression; prison is persecution. A free country is supposed to keep all three to a minimum. In the case of drugs, tobacco and alcohol, we find the opposite. Cowardly opportunists tell the idiots, "These things are evil. They will kill everyone, unless you vote for me.".

Liberty and justice for all, except weed-smokers. Maybe now that the country has been fully populated, we can get rid of the dumb sales-pitches? We don't need more immigrants. We need to set the country straight once again.

What if you merged wet and dry food? Maybe you could you put the wet food inside the dry food? That way, there's only one thing of food to get and we wouldn't have to deal with messy wet food packaging. Lot easier to just pour out dry food.

What is normal? Normal is what is currently most common. It is the current group-opinion. Weirdness is the deviance.

There is no reason to sleep at night. These days, we have flashlights, lamps, and nightvision goggles. Owing to the fact we can now see at night, shouldn't we adjust our strategy behind when we sleep and when we work?

America is very much divided into two groups: real Americans and assholes. The real Americans are the people who came here to escape oppression, tyranny and persecution. They came here when the place was discovered. They formed the first colonies. When the United States was formed, hundreds of years later, a whole new group of people came. They didn't come to escape persecution, they came for money. In their nations, they were the poor and the hungry. What they wanted was a better life (meaning, more money).

Today, we have the same division. When Europeans look at Americans, they often see the money-crazed versions (the assholes). Real Americans would never trade liberty for security, or for money. Real Americans are perfectly intelligent enough to know, you cannot trade liberty for security and if you try you will lose both.

Will the United States let these money-driven idiots take away their liberties? They have so far, but maybe it's not too late? The money-driven immigrants don't care about freedom. They don't care about truth. They care about the size of their bank-accounts. They go on national TV and lie to everyone, spreading false propaganda, just to enhance their portfolios. They deliberately sell liberties, because liberty means nothing to them. Bunch of traitors is what they've turned out to be. People with no concern whatsoever for the values pumping blood through this nation.

This is not a normal case of immigration. A small group of immigrants, or a few here or there will merely be assimilated. This is a case where there are two major groups, two major immigrations, and done for two drastically different reasons. One was a group of brave pioneers, the other were cowardly opportunists.

Freedom is not attained through military action, as some deluded politicians want you to think. The United States is separated from hostile powers by entire oceans. Any large invading force will be spotted thousands of miles away, and subsequently nuked out of existence long before they reach our shores. Any small force can be dealt with by the people themselves, through the 2nd amendment. Which means, we must only worry about domestic threats. The biggest threat to our liberty comes from those who speak falsely, telling you they will make you safe if you surrender your freedom. If a foreign power said the same, would you surrender? Of course not, so why don't you get your heads out of your asses, stop doing the most naive, foolish thing possible (trusting government), and restore this country to its intended state of freedom?

You don't need government to protect you and your children. You can do both yourself. You can take martial arts classes. You can get a gun. You can reinforce your home, vehicle and workplace (if you're that concerned). If a cocaine-addict attacks you, shoot them in the knee-cap. If a non-cocaine-addict attacks you, shoot them in the knee-cap. And if a foreign power invades, you can fend them off yourself.

If you don't want freedom, why are you here? There are plenty of other countries to choose from. This is the problem with being rich and powerful. All these asses come looking for a piece of the pie, not caring for the values you hold dear. They don't even know your values. But they can vote. We're not going to let them steal our nation, of course. If I were them, being a bunch of cocksucking traitors, I suppose I too would be overly-concerned for my safety. I'm not saying we're going to just kill them all, even if that's what we should do. I'm just saying, you keep robbing our liberties, it will not end well for you.

How many things are oppressing us, in our daily lives? How many of those things could be removed? America is supposed to be a country of freedom, not of safety. It is supposed to be the Home of the Brave, not the home of the chickenshits. You claim to be 'saving lives', but you're really oppressing. Lives cannot be saved, only prolonged. Stupid morons should die before they reproduce, for the sake of natural selection.

1. Drug, cigarette and alcohol laws.

These laws are bullshit. Me smoking weed does not oppress anyone, yet I am being oppressed and possibly persecuted.

Young people, with the consent of their parents and guardians, should be able to use whatever substances they want.

2. Speed-limits.

These things are not necessary. People are not suicidal. They have strong survival instincts. If the speed-limits were changed to speed-recommendations, people would stay around the recommended 'safe' speed. If there is no recommended speed, they may drive dangerously because they do not realize they are driving at an unsafe speed.

3. Drivers licenses.

Also not necessary. People drive their whole lives, as passengers. When they get old enough to drive drive, they can learn the rest from their parents or whoever. Most of the rules of the road, which are necessary, are detailed on the roads themselves and are otherwise self-explanatory (such as stopping at those ambiguous signs that say 'stop').

4. Seat-belt laws.

To show how far the insane oppression has gone, they now force you to wear a seat-belt. At least, with the other driving laws, there is some concern for other cars on the road. With these laws, what the fuck? No other drivers are at risk when you fail to wear a seat-belt.

5. Work-laws.

There are too many different work-laws for me to go over. If you have any you'd like to add, don't feel oppressed.

I'll leave it there, so you can add whatever laws are oppressing you in your daily lives. Are they necessary? Are they a lesser of two oppressions?

Treat women well. Let them think their tits are oh so sexy. Tits are obtrusive lumps of fat, really. But make women believe, their tits are magic.

If you find a girl you like, and you want to like go on a date with her, it's a simple three-step process:

#1. Ask her how old she is.
#2. Ask her how much she weighs.
#3. Now that she's loosened up, ask her on a date. She will without question say yes.

I like Nat, she's not cool at all. She was mean to me, which I respect, because it's honest.

In the world of sports, success is a simple equation. If you score more points than your opponent, you succeeded. Outside of sports, things are not so simple. A film-maker may measure success by ticket-sales. An author may measure by critical acclaim. A pop-star could measure their version of success through popularity. If you were Wilt Chamberlain, you might measure success by the amount of women you sleep with (in the world of basketball, quantity and quality have very little difference). We see the same thing in video games. So how should we measure success? Should success be measured differently by different people, based on differences?

Counter-strike measures success by prize-money per-year, and by overall popularity. Quake, clearly, is unconcerned with popularity. For Quake players, it is purely a matter of critical acclaim. Although certainly, Quake players would also measure success based on prize-money. If Quake began measuring success by popularity, how would it change the game? Does more popularity automatically mean less critical acclaim?

Some games measure success by sales. Others, by having a solid multiplayer community. Today, we occasionally see games measured by competitive competency. In pro-gaming, or e-sports, a game must pass the competition standard. Hot, cold, sweet, sour... are they factors when testing a game for competitiveness? Possibly not, but occasionally, you see a player measured by their ability to get 'hot'.

In today's world, we have many technological advancements to assist with measuring. But, if you do not know what to measure, they are all worthless. Maybe we shouldn't measure any one specific thing, we should measure everything?

What do you think? How should success be measured? If we don't measure everything, can we understand what will work?

Who came up with the idea addiction is bad? Do people function under the assumption addiction is bad, or has someone provided reason? Doctors, in their infinite nonsense, want to now convince everyone addiction is not evil, it's a disease to be cured. Let's put this notion to the test. Is addiction truly bad, or did everyone accept the assertion of an idiot?

What could possibly be bad about addiction? It takes away self-control? Not completely. It's a lot like religion in that sense, it makes the pain more painful and the pleasure more pleasurable. It guides you, by controlling your base instincts.

How about the fact you are chained to your addiction? You must have it, on a regular basis. This one is probably why everyone assumes addiction is evil, because we all know oxygen and food, you don't need on a regular basis.

Maybe it's the money you must spend to feed your addiction? But how could that be a reason? We spend money on retarded television shows and crap exploitation music. We spend money to kill and torture innocent people. Better to spend it on a cigarette here or there. Unless you argue money should only be spent on the basic necessities, I don't see how you could use money as a reason.

How about something everyone knows to be true: whatever you're addicted to does nothing good for you whatsoever? Wait a second... nevermind.

Addiction is evil, because stupid people are targeted by business predators? Predator and prey, it's been that way for billions of years, it will be that way until the end of eternity. Stupid people will continue being stupid, unless their stupidity hurts them, causing them, through evolution, to become intelligent. In this sense, addiction is not evil, nor are predators. If anything is evil here, it is stupidity. Stupidity will not be fixed by deceiving stupid people into thinking addiction is evil. And certainly, it won't be fixed by 'protecting' people from addiction.

I can't figure it out. Can someone explain to me what's 'bad' about addiction?

When I was in Ecuador, I got a couple bottles of rum. The rum there comes from Cuba. Nothing against communism, but these fucking bottles were a pain in the ass. I never did figure out how to get any decent flow of alcohol out of the bottle. Normally, you take off the cap and pour it out. Not with these things. Lenin, the bartender, did a far better job. There must be some kind of trick to it, but what is the purpose?

Is Democracy nothing more than group-opinion defeating deviance? Why do we live by such a foolish system, when we could instead learn to ascertain? If you smoke cigarettes, yes, you may get cancer. Chances are, if you get cancer, you'll be so fucking old you'll almost be dead anyway, so who fucking cares? Point B, if people keep smoking cigarettes, through evolution, cigarettes will stop causing cancer. Did it occur to anyone, that the group-opinion is often, if not always, entirely and completely wrong? Did it occur to anyone, that the group-opinion, is, by its mechanical nature, innately idiotic?

I can't smoke a joint, but you can kill a million innocent people. Regardless of whether or not you kill them, I should still be able to smoke weed without any potential for legal repercussions. The group-opinion is that weed should be illegal. Well the group is fucking retarded (no offense to actual mental midgets [no offense to actual midgets]).

The group, while probably our greatest strength in nature, in society, is our greatest weakness. Goebbels taught us, to start a war, all you must do is label war opponents traitors (a.k.a. deviants). Anyone familiar with the last several years of the American-Iraq holocaust knows, Republicans used the exact same tactic. And they did so effectively.

Throughout history, i'm sure you can find iteration after iteration of exactly what i'm talking about. The group being a bunch of idiots, forcing their stupidity on the rest. A Republic is no better. It relies on the same structure, but with fewer idiots. When will we learn to put aside opinion and belief? When we will start to make sure things are correct? You do not need confidence if you have certainty.

I've seen more than my share of crazy robots. They know nothing of how their brains actually work. They trust their 'instincts', not realizing nothing is easier to manipulate. They don't even know what instincts are. They think when someone deviates, and it feels painful, the deviant must be evil, because only evil causes harm. They think, when the night scares them, there must a boogey-man under their bed. They instinctually fear the darkness, yet know nothing of where the instinct comes from.

We live in a world where they used to believe witches existed, and to such an extent, they would literally burn them to death. We live in a world, where when Galileo proved the Earth moved around the Sun (and not the other way around), the group (Christianity), considered Galileo the most deviant of deviants, and subsequently tortured him into lying about his findings. We live in a world, where you can kill 1 million innocent people, through an invasion based on obvious fabrication, and still try-out for the Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad, create a library filled with comic-books and #1 polluter awards, and be treated like just one of the pals, while basking in undeserved fortunes.

People are robots. That's the truth. Until they know what the fuck is actually going on, they will not stop being robots. But I suppose it doesn't matter, because American Idol will be on soon.

Would it be worthwhile to build trains across large spans of water? It could be done by building tracks underneath the water. At that point, the track would only function to deliver electricity and keep the train moving in the right direction. Buoyancy would ensure the track is not being broken by the train's weight.

How much of the energy could be provided by wind and solar, and how fast could the train go?

If we ditch the big-city format, we can be safe from WMD's. A small-town format would work fine. There are not enough people in small-towns to warrant the use of a WMD. The small-town format is already a working, economical structure. Although, in the small-town format, there could be targets for smaller munitions.

Target 1, Schools: By using the internet, the school-system could be modified so students no longer congregate. Through the use of webcams, a student could easily and interactively participate in almost every normal class function, without leaving their home.

Target 2, Movie Theaters: I doubt people care much anymore about theaters. If you did an experiment, where you released new movies to both theaters and homes, theater sales would likely 'plummet'. With all the big-screen tv's, and the comfort of your own home, it's tough for dirty, crowded theaters to compete. The whole theater system could be scrapped.

Target 3, Sporting Events: Yes, for most sports, it would be odd if there were no crowds. It could still function though. Most people watch sports through their home televisions anyway. Non-professional sporting events do not usually generate the kind of crowd worth bombing. Another solution is for everyone to quit physical sports and only play online esports (this would obviously be the most preferable solution for everyone).

Target 4, Markets: In small-towns where i've lived, markets are never crowded. They could easily be organized so they are less crowded. In today's world of computers, the internet, and home delivery, most or all things can be acquired online anyway, where there is no risk of bombing.

Target 5, Hospitals: Small-town hospitals are small. They're usually one-story, and there are never many people there. Not much of a target to begin with, and could be less of a target if desired.

Target 6, Bars/Clubs: These could be minor targets. Neither are necessary, both could be scrapped without too many people caring. You can get drunk at home. You can dance at home. You can listen to music at home. You can have friends over to do all of those things with you. I don't know that you could secure these types of things, considering the main point is to congregate. Even if you check people at the door, they can just shoot the security people, run-in and suicide-bomb everyone. Or, they could break-in when things are closed, plant the bomb, then detonate when the place is packed. And those are only two methods of bypassing security. Furthermore, a military-grade missile or bombing attack would render all typical security worthless.

Target 7, Restaurants: These things are not needed. You should not trade freedom for security, but it's possible you should trade luxury for security. A delivery restaurant would still work fine. Catering would also be safe. Because your car functions as armor, drive-thru would work.

Target 8, Work-Environments: With the addition of computers and the internet, most work can be done at home, remotely or otherwise. Most other work does not require congregation. If people made an effort, i'm sure working conditions could be secured fairly easily.

Target 9, Apartment Buildings/Hotels: In small-towns, these things are always too small to be worth bombing. Like the hospitals, they are usually around one-story.

Target 10, Churches: In this one case, more congregation = safer... really. Trust me, church-people, especially Christians, you should gather together. The more people per square-inch, the better.

I can't think of any other targets. These should be enough to go on. As you can plainly see, we do not need to put our selves at risk. Nuclear weapons, other WMD's, and bombing in general, do not need to threaten. Most of the reason these things are a threat, is because people value luxury over safety. The rest of the reason comes from simple economics. With modern technology, old economics no longer apply. Utilizing new technologies, safer systems could also be more economical systems.

What is your opinion of nuclear energy? Personally, i'm against nuclear power if only because it can be sabotaged. If it can be, it will be. Furthermore, i'd like to exonerate myself now, by saying, if the nuclear plants are sabotaged, it wasn't me.

There's an exception to every rule, except Constitutional rule. Don't forget that, America.

You want to get married, who cares? The question should not be, gay-marriage or no, the question should be, why is marriage state-sanctioned? What possible reason is there for government to involve itself with marriages and divorces? Property and legal rights can be dealt with aside from marriage. Is it really the business of government to force itself into everyone's private lives and private relationships? Marriage is traditionally a public affair, but should it stay a public affair?

When marriage began, everyone lived in tiny little hamlets. If someone got married, the whole village went to the wedding. Everyone knew exactly who was married. Today, we live in 20,000,000 person mega-cities. How can public marriage still serve any reasonable purpose?

Personally, I am completely against state-marriage. It is unnecessary, and serves no real function. Why exactly does the state want people to get married and stay married anyway? How can the state justify providing benefits for married couples? I don't want my tax-dollars taken away by married people. It is absurd and unreasonable I should have to pay more taxes because the state wants to coerce people into marriage. You don't need to be married to have a family. And you don't need to be state-married to be married. So what the fuck is the purpose?

On to the issue of drugs. We're all familiar with drugs. When it comes to drugs, some people are beyond ignorant. Some people are so ignorant, they think drugs turn Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Others think drugs, no matter what, will cause damage. So what is the truth about drugs?

If you take drugs, you can control yourself. Drugs will not turn you into a monster. Truth is, drugs are nothing more than tools. The war on drugs is like having a war on silverware. Because spoons can be used to gouge out eyeballs or choke people, spoons must be evil. Even though the steak-knife can easily maim and kill, if used correctly, the steak-knife helps cut steak. Drugs are the same way. Yes, if you use them incorrectly, you can hurt yourself or others. If used correctly, drugs can help you cut steak.

You could argue things have gotten a little screwed up since drugs came around. I would not dispute that claim. Instead of laying blame, like only fools do, let us assess the situation.

Because drugs were new, it means people did not know how to use them. Some ambitious individuals, such as priests and politicians, use everything they can to gain power. They tell everyone, 'drugs are evil', 'we have to fight them'. Politicians and religions are notorious for creating villains where there are none, just so they can gain your allegiance by playing the hero. Their actions, aside from helping themselves, had a terrible affect on drug-study. Instead of realizing drugs are merely tools, and then learning how to properly use these tools, drug users were treated as criminals. The drug-users themselves became caught up in the same crazyness as everyone else. All they knew is they wanted to use drugs. Drugs can be very enjoyable, and like any dumb animal, the naive human constantly moves towards pleasure (in whatever form pleasure manifests itself).

In other words, the tools were new, which means a learning period was inevitable. In any learning period, there are many mistakes. Politicians and religions prolonged the process, and in fact, exacerbated the problem. Today, we know drugs are nothing more than tools. Many of us know exactly how to safely use these tools. Some of us even know how to use these tools for things other than partying. The damage done by drugs is mostly over. In its place, drugs will be helpful.

Gay-marriage is pretty gay, when it's in the state, because marriage should not be state-sanctioned. Drugs should be legalized immediately. Although, some drugs maybe should require a license, like a drivers license (at least, for transitional purposes).

Everyone loves to trade freedom. Here, in the United States, a nation founded on freedom, people trade freedom for anything. A blowjob, security, better health, religion. Like freedom is meaningless to them. The politicians, they just love going on their virtuous crusades to take away your freedoms, because apparently, freedom is evil. Great group of patriots we have living here. Old governments were authoritarian. None of them were founded on the principle of liberty. There must be some natural force driving society into forming the way it did initially. Is this force still so prevalent, in a nation founded on freedom, the people ignore societal principles in favor of what comes naturally?

If you want to smoke cigarettes, you'll have to pay $10, per-pack, in taxes. Why? Because smoking is 'bad' for you, says a politician. By way of government force, it is becoming more and more difficult to ruin your own health. No more freedom for you, instead you must comply with the health-standards assigned by your government.

Want to smoke a joint, well you can't. Why? Because some politician says it's 'bad'. No freedom for you, instead you will be tortured through imprisonment.

Want to live dangerously? Too bad, you must have security. Freedom be damned, now drive-safely.

Apparently, liberty is not an inalienable right granted by nature's God. Any asshole government and ignorant populace can take it away. But they're doing it for your benefit... the extra taxes on cigarettes, they're good for you. Everything, we the politicians, are doing... these things are good for you. They'll help you. Taking away your freedom will help you, just have faith in your benevolent politicians, who rob, cheat and steal every chance they get.

There are no good or bad people. There are only possibilities. If the possibility is available, someone, sooner or later, will take advantage. If you want crime to end, you have to make crime impossible. There are no good guys and bad guys, like in cheap old westerns, or super-hero comics. The super-power wants to be the super-hero, yet there is no such thing. It wouldn't happen if it was impossible.

One of the problems with regulation, is in the fact regulation can be easily removed by any dickhead administration (see, the Bush administration). People become accustomed to the zoo. The lions are regulated in their cages. The Bush administration comes along, releases the lions, does not inform, warn or prepare the zoo-denizens in any way. Before the zoo-people know what's happening, they become lion-food. But you see, if the regulation was not present to begin with, the people would not stand around, too helpless and unaware to defend themselves.

Knowing how politicians, and government, truly function, what must be done to ensure freedom is one commodity we never trade?

To a world currency, I vote no. It's the same issue of unity. In fantasy, unity is good. In reality, if one party goes in the wrong direction, they die and we live. If we all go in that same direction, we all die. Unity puts the entire species at risk.

Natural order must be upheld. The current economic problems could largely be attributed to changes in regulation. People are used to a certain way; when it changes, there isn't enough time for adjustment. Predators kill all the prey, which leaves the predators without food. If the prey was equipped to deal with predators, on their own, per natural way, there would be no need for government protections which are flawed and severely unnatural, at best.

Humans are idiots, most of whom live in fantasy. None of them know better than nature. Evolution proves there is no sin and virtue, which means there is no heaven and hell. Communists and socialists, with their bizarre giving-a-shit about others moralism, are in some ways more deluded than the religious idiots they typically fight. If you really cared, you would not protect the poor bastards. You would allow them to evolve appropriately, no matter how painful evolution might be. Look at the turtle, it used to be hurt constantly. It is a harmless vegetarian... an 'innocent' creature. If you protected turtles, they never would have developed the shell needed to protect themselves. What happens when you are not there to protect those you 'care' about? They become helpless. All the predator must do is separate you from them, unless of course, those you 'care' about can protect themselves.

While you spend your time and money 'protecting' the so-called innocent, you could spend these things doing something else. If the 'innocent' could protect themselves, they would have no need for you. Through evolution, the prey can learn to protect itself. This is not an option. It is what must be done. You can survive for a time with an unnatural system, but eventually the system will deteriorate, as nature cannot be defied by even a trillion men.

Religious people keep going around calling global warming a hoax. They provide no evidence corroborating their claims. They provide no proof. To them, evidence is meaningless and proof does not exist. They're completely wrong, but they choose denial over acceptance.

It used to be, people thought the world was flat. People thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, and the Sun revolved around the Earth. It used to be, people thought the Earth and all the stars were created 6,000 years ago, and all creatures were created in their current form. We've proven all of that to be a bunch of bullshit. We've proven all of religion to be a bunch of bullshit, something created by man, with nothing to do with God. What's it going to take for religious people to stop being religious? To get rid of the nonsense belief mechanism, which inhibits their ability to ascertain and accept truth?

Maybe they call global warming a hoax, because they want it to happen? They make believers believe it isn't true, so there is less effort to stop global warming? Many religious people want humanity dead, to 'prove' their beliefs (how ironic), and send them, the believers, to eternal bliss. Their desire for human extinction, yet again, proves the inherent danger of religion. If these very same organizations were not religious, simply organizations wanting the extinction of humanity, no one would tolerate them. And yet, these religious people hold some of the highest offices... such as the Queen of England, who has publicly stated she cannot wait for Jesus to return (meaning, for everyone to die).

Why does religious tolerance persist? We know religion has nothing to do with any real God's, so fear of God could not be a legitimate reason. Political bribery? Any politician works to get the religious vote. You only believe things because you don't know them. When you have gained knowledge, belief no longer exists. In the case of religion, believers deny gained knowledge in favor of pre-existing fallacies. So again, why do we tolerate religion? Clearly, there are some who stopped tolerating religion. Maybe religion will finally be gone when no one tolerates it anymore.

I first learned about pro-gaming when I was 16. I heard about someone winning a Ferrari through a Q2 tournament. My first impression was that it was a cheap marketing scheme. It wasn't until 4 years later I took a second look. Things had changed a lot in 4 years. They changed enough, and in the right ways, to convince me pro-gaming could be viable.

I don't want to blame the Bush administration for everything that's gone wrong over the past 8 years. People have short memories. All the horrible shit Bush did, everyone has already forgotten about. As if Bush never existed. Well... pro-gaming made no real progress over the past 8 years. There were failures after failures of failingness. Through failing, we can learn how to not fail. As one lan organization fails, another decides they want to give failure a shot. Is the gaming community learning impaired? Does forced government education condition people to hate learning?

The only game worse than world of warcraft, which I only play because my ping is 2000ms, would be counter-strike. I gave CS a legitimate shot. After 2 weeks, the game was so boring, suicide became a preferable alternative. I'm only kidding, of course. I only talk about these games because any publicity is good publicity. Now that everyone knows about gaming-stuff, we don't need more publicity, we only need working organizations.

The thing is, to be a true professional sports-person means you spend your 40 work-hours a week studying, practicing and doing whatever other form of training. A true professional should be unbeatable by any amateur, if for no other reason, than because the professional spends their work-hours on their sport, rather than at some generic 9-5. Additionally, of course, the true professional is typically the most talented. In video games, there are other factors, such as equipment. A pro who only gets 30fps will lose to a pro with 125. A pro who uses a console controller will lose to a pro who uses a mouse and keyboard. This means, a professional console organization will lose to a professional pc organization. At the end of the sports day, the people who lose the game will lose their jobs.

I'm sure you've all heard the expression, 'jack of all trades, master of none'. When the professional gamer must have more than one trade, it lowers their gaming abilities. If the professional gaming organization cannot provide proper financial security, in the present and future, that organization will lose its best players and therefore will lose its business.

At this stage of pro-gaming, much has changed. The internet has become far more useable. Ping would be the only real factor separating it from the lan structure. With the global economic problems, the internet has become far more attractive, quite possibly necessary. With all we've learned, it should not be overly difficult constructing a working, truly legitimate, pro-gaming organization.

The pro-gaming model does not hold for in-person gaming presentations. Right now, these events are novelties. When the novelty wears off, what are we left with? Gaming is not like physical sports. No matter what, the match must be watched on TV. You either travel to an event and pay an entrance fee, or you don't. Either way, you'll be watching the matches on TV; but one of the ways is more expensive.

You have to think about the specs. The money comes from them. This is not only about fun, it's also about business. Many people have dreams, when they're young... then they grow up and find the reality does not match the fantasy. Be careful what you wish for, is the common expression. It's not so bad though. I'm sure most of you started playing competitively when you got online. The online model is a proven success. You must have enjoyed your time playing online, or you wouldn't still be playing today.

Online leagues and ladders are the most consistently successful. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, like the CPL attempted with its 'I want to be the nfl' attitude, you should build on what is already a proven success. There are many differences between video games and other games. Differences can make all the difference. What works for other games might not work for video games and vice-versa.

The internet and computers have every utility necessary. If the system ran through something like an xbox, it would be perfectly suitable for a casual audience. GTV could be easily managed. It could be like looking for a game on TV, flipping through the pages of what's available.

People often harpoon the internet way, because of cheating possibilities. There is no more risk of cheating online than there is off, in a professional capacity anyway. What pro-player would risk their 'career' by cheating? I'd have to think, the people who push this argument are in the business of lan-tournaments. The internet is a competitor they want to defeat. If you go internet, they lose money.

It's not so much about what the players prefer. It's more about what can be realistically done. We should get something secure, then we can go from there. $20k a year is not secure. It's almost impossible to be a real pro-player. The money isn't enough to provide long-term security. You'd have to become a salesman like fatality and put your name on everything. That's not gaming, it's marketing.

Internet models are the only models which have achieved long-term success. Add money to the successful competitive online models, and you have pro-gaming. Online tournaments have achieved no long-term success. Far as I know, only ladders and leagues have remained over the past 15 years. Either one should do fine. Might be interesting having a professional ladder. Can't think of any pro-games using a true ladder format. Something like boxing would be the closest. Which means, there's land available. The online-ladder arrangement could be the right one for pro-gaming.

The American legal definition of insane is completely insane. It says you are legally insane if you cannot tell the difference between 'right and wrong' (again, with the morality bullshit). This definition seems to have been spawned from an unholy alliance of psychiatry and religion. As evolution functions through pain and pleasure, right and wrong in a moralist sense does not exist. If by right and wrong, you mean correct and incorrect, how can insane be synonymous with ignorant?

Most people, when they think of evolution, they only think about the monkey-to-man relationship. When you understand the full dynamics of evolution, it disproves a hell of a lot more than creationism.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. That God gave us the right to smoke as much god-damned fucking weed as we fucking want. I live in a country filled with traitors.

I understand... playing in person is more fun. You get the crowd, and whatever, it's exhilarating. Online, it simply isn't the same. Unfortunately, you must consider the business dynamics. How can the lan model compete with the internet model, realistically?

Exactly how does hypno' have 4,294,967,295 E$'s?

I recently visited the Republic del Ecuador, a birding 'hotspot'. I spent time in Quito, which I enjoyed thoroughly. I drove eight hours to a place called Tandayapa Lodge, a secluded location in the Andes. It was great all the way to. Here are some pictures:

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj193/naf1981/PC150394.jpg
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj193/naf1981/PC170427.jpg
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj193/naf1981/PC170439.jpg

I am not a 'birder' myself, more of a general nature enthusiast, but this place was great.

Ecuador itself, I enjoyed very much. I tried Goat stew, which for me was delicious. There were many nice women. I acquired a new hat, for my collection of world hats.

After Quito and the Andes, I went to the Galapagos: the place of Darwin and evolution. Unfortunately, I took no photographs in the Galapagos. My French guide Nadine said no flash photography. I was unfamiliar with my new camera, not aware of how to turn off the flash. Between flash photography and death, which she promised me, I chose no photography.

I highly recommend visiting Ecuador, especially the Galapagos. Go to Santa Cruz, and get wasted with a diverse world of who knows what nationalities you will encounter.

Religion is the greatest threat to humanity. Humans are so dominant because of their intelligence. Through their intelligence, they create and use tools. Without intelligence, humans would be extinct, or would at least be without their precious luxuries. Religious people directly fight intelligence. They champion ignorance and stupidity. They want you to be dumb, so you can be more easily controlled.

For over 200 years now, in the United States, religion has been forbidden from integration with the State. Even so, they never stop attempting infiltration. They have managed to push their beliefs into many of our laws. Drugs, alcohol and prostitution were all outlawed by Christians. These things are kept illegal for 'moral' reasons. Morality is religion. At the inception of the United States, morality played no part in legislation.

The freedom of peaceable assembly is not in place for moral reasons. It is in place because violent assemblies could challenge the government. A violent assembly might mean an army. This is how our laws should still function, but instead, religion forces its garbage on everyone, relentless in its pursuit of omnipotence.

To go back to the drug and alcohol issue: Obviously, these things are tools. Seeing as how tools are the main reason we dominate this planet, what kind of idiot would outlaw tools? Religious people tell you alcohol and drugs are 'sinful'; they are wrong to use, and if you use them, you either go to hell or go to church. Religions want to weaken you, to take away your tools, so they can control you more easily.

As we can clearly deduce, the purpose of all living creatures is the same - survival of the species. The individual cannot survive except through reproduction. Every species survives through reproduction and evolution. As survival is the clear purpose, and religion is the greatest threat to human survival, why do we continue tolerating religion?

The founders of the United States installed freedom of religion only because everyone then was religious. The United States is a nation of immigrants. If religion was forbidden entirely, no one would have come. Today, the country is populated. What valid reason is there to continue subsidizing our greatest threat? If someone is trying to kill you, do you give them a gun?

Religion began as a means to explain the surrounding world. Those in power quickly determined religion could be used as a form of control. Religion then evolved into a system of slavery, with no concern for anything else. Today, after millenia of destruction, many people realize the true nature of religion. It started out innocently and became a monster.

Now that evolution can replace religion completely, only a nation of fools would kill themselves by staying the religious course.

American politicians are the worst in the world. They don't miss by a little, they shoot in the opposite direction. Remarkably, our founders did a great job. If our politicians would simply follow the Constitution, things would be alright.

Look at the legal system... prisons are over-flowing. Our politicians have allowed morality (a.k.a. religion) to sneak into government (which is un-Constitutional). Now, our nation turns non-criminals into criminals and criminals into arch-criminals. Cruel and unusual punishment is illegal by way of the 8th amendment. When you touch that hot stove, if it's only a little too hot, it's no big deal.. lesson learned. If it's way too hot, you will make damn sure you never get burned again. That's what they do, they imprison pot-smokers and 'underage' drinkers (as if maturity comes with a set-age). These people are not in any way criminal, yet the inflicted punishments turn them into criminals. It sure as shit won't stop them from smoking pot again, or drinking... all it will do is make them better criminals.

This is the horrible stupidity of our politicians. They illegally disobey the Constitution, which even without evolution (and all the other knowledge we've gained over the course of 230 years), does a better job than them. Some of the Constitution may need re-writing. Cruel and unusual punishment does include the word punishment. There is no true punishment. Pain is part of evolution, not part of morality. When you inflict pain, the creature does not accept wrong-doing, it evolves so there will be no further pain.

You have to wonder what is wrong with our politicians. How could they be so stupid? They are so self-assured of their own devices. Maybe i'll leave that one to the psychologists. To evolve, we should eliminate our idiotic politicians, remove their horrific legislations, and enact further legislation to ensure no future moronic politicians can possibly obtain government office.

Religious people, in their infinite arrogance, want to feel special. Like they're better than everyone else. They're on God's team, you're not. These people firmly choose to delude themselves into thinking humans are different from animals. That human life has a different purpose than animal life. They are wrong, again. Human life is no different from animal life. We all eat, sleep, and breathe. We all experience pain, pleasure and fear. We all evolve. To understand the purpose of human life, you must stop differentiating between animal and human life.

Will the three-toed sloth go to Heaven? Will the grub-worm? How about the single-celled amoeba? Of course not, it's absurd. So what does happen to those creatures when they die? Why do religious people continue pushing the idea human life is different from animal? Isn't the answer obvious?

Scientists: belittled, tortured and hated by every fanatical religious slave-driver since the conception of science. Today, they've realized science cannot be demonized, satanized, or antagonized. They've developed a new word for science, "Naturalism". They are currently in a campaign to spread this word and demonize it all the way to hell. It is a stupid endeavor, fitting of idiotic weak-minded religious slaves. What is its opposite? Supernatural? Unnatural? Either one is impossible, neither have any shred of supporting evidence (much like all of religion).

When the Priest rapes your children, even though it is literally happening, it is also happening metaphorically. Like the casino, your leg may not get physically broken, but your wallet will. Religions prey on the weak. Children are the weakest among us, naive to the horrors of reality. Your child is enslaved, their whole lives ruined by their child-hood experiences.

We are soon approaching an age where religion will be destroyed by evolution. Many people have already evolved past the point of religion. It is only a matter of time before everyone else will reach the same stage.

Please, be civil. If I can convince you your behavior is 'wrong', you will do something else. Civility is another term for slavery. Order is another term for slavery. Chaos, what people call the natural way, is true order. We eat, we sleep, we breathe... we must do the things necessary to eat, sleep and breathe. What could be more orderly? Basic needs consume the span of our lives. The notion of human 'order' is not completely without merit. Maybe we could move past the point of authoritarianism?

The true merit of 'order' or 'civility' comes from its organizational benefits. Why not strip the ungainly fat of moralism, effectively streamlining the organizational affect? Let's get honest... everyone hates 'order'. People do not like being slaves. They do not like being raped. On the other hand, people do like kicking ass. If their behavior was part of an organization, meant to kick ass, they would be more willing to cooperate.

The communist manifesto was written after Darwin presented his theory of evolution. There couldn't have been much evolution included because Darwin's theories were only the beginning. Today, we know far more than Darwin or Marx. Why not develop a system of society, a system of government, centered around evolution? The nation should evolve, the people of the nation should evolve. Currently, religious people, who massively populate every nation on Earth, spend their lives trying to do what is moral... trying to avoid sin and acquire passage to Heaven. This is not an evolutionary way of living. In fact, it accomplishes the opposite - it makes them weaker, less able to survive. Any nation which lives in an evolutionary way can easily conquer a religious nation, or any other stagnant nation.

Every system of government currently in use, and conceived of throughout history, has no evolutionary inclusion. The society eventually denigrates, as the population evolves but the government does not. Government must then be re-built, after a violent gestation period. The government must evolve as its citizens evolve.

Religious people continue 'disbelieving' evolution, as if evolution is nothing more than another religion. Well to all the religious people, I will quote Jesus, "The truth will set you free.". This is not an issue of faith, it is an issue of proven truth. If you live in denial, you will certainly be destroyed. If enough members of a nation live in denial, the nation will be destroyed. Matter of factly, what Jesus meant is when you learn the truth about religion, you will be free from the slavery that is religion. A nation of slaves is not an evolved nation. Slaves are weak, helpless creatures. A strong nation, one capable of survival, would ensure all its members are of high-caliber.

In today's world, humans do not need strong physical traits. Today, we need strong mental traits. Any physical task can be better accomplished by machines. We do need enough intelligence to build and operate the machines. Cost is the only potential reason to use physical labor over mechanical. As we become better at making more efficient machines, the cost of physical labor will exceed the cost of mechanical. Clearly, the correct evolutionary path is to become better intellectually. Religion accomplishes the direct opposite, making you as weak-minded as possible, to ensure you cannot free yourself from slavery. When you, as a religious person, hear a conflicting idea, such as evolution, the pain you experience comes from weak-mindedness. Some religious people are so weak-minded, they will fight conflicting ideas... in childish ways, no less, such as covering their ears so they can't hear the alternative theory (these people are delusional, by definition). These religious people are clear proof religion is backwards, fit for an old world, one we leave as quickly as we can develop the faster vehicles with which to do so.

Religion is old government. A system of control, a system of slavery. They manipulate your instincts, your feelings, the ones everyone always tells you to 'trust' so much. And I agree, you should trust your instincts, especially when your instincts instruct you to give me all your money.

New governments must be scientific. They must be fully designed to evolve, and to allow for the proper evolution of society. Notions of morality should play no part, as they have no factual basis in reality. Evolution clearly disproves morality as a legitimate philosophy. There is no good and evil, there is only evolution and extinction. Crime never goes away because people live under the false dichotomy of good and evil. Psychiatrists attempt to 'cure' evil through drugs. Evil cannot be cured because it doesn't exist. What does exist is a lack of self-defense. You blame the murderer, when you could just as easily blame the murdered. If the 'victim' could adequately defend themself, the murder would not have occurred.

Government is not God. It is not magical. If someone is raping you, government will only show up when it's too late. Lot of good imprisoning the rapist does, after you've already been raped. If you could defend yourself, which an evolved creature is fully capable of doing, the rape would not have occurred. When rape-victims, and other victims of crime, can defend themselves, a government police force becomes unnecessary and crime becomes extinct.

There is no utopia. There is no heaven. There never will be. Pain and pleasure are equally necessary. As is fear and self-defense. Evolutionary societies will quickly become necessary, as unevolved nations will be unable to compete with evolved. Things must be destroyed. Space and time are limited. It is naive to think destruction can be averted, or again, is somehow evil. It is not necessary for people to rule over other people. We can co-exist, in a team-environment, quite possibly without any authority figures. It would require some degree of evolution, yes, but it is well worth it and may be necessary. Government can function to provide structure to society, and to protect a nation from other nations, without needing to protect the members of the nation from other members of the nation. What you call justice is entirely based on the religious notion of morality. No politicians, no police, no prisons... it is possible the stage could be reached. Getting there would, at least, require multiple transitional stages. An evolutionary government would account for each and every stage, altering law at the appropriate moment. On the surface, this may seem like a backwards step into nature. It is actually the very opposite. Government is expensive. The less government you have, the richer the society. The more you can invest in something like military protection. Eventually, national security could well be the only reason to retain government. Even national security could conceivably be eclipsed.

Government is like the worst corporation and religion you can imagine, combined into one entity. It has a total monopoly. It functions on rudimentary beliefs, enforcing them against your will regardless of their legitimacy. Even if we cannot fully eradicate government, we can continue, through force of evolution, reducing what government is necessary.

If you enjoy materialistic capitalism, you will enjoy the World of Warcraft. Underneath the dragons and magic spells, WoW is a microcosm of America. If you want to fully enjoy the pursuit of happiness, you must fully engage in masochism. If you did institute differing economic systems, moralism aside, we could learn each system's tactical differences. People often argue for communism as a system of virtue. It is ironic, because communists are typically more atheistic. Moralism is a philosophical religious notion utterly destroyed by evolution (appropriately enough, as evolution functions specifically to destroy what is rubbish, clearing space for what isn't).

World of Warcraft isn't all bad. The people are assholes, without exception (other than myself). The game world is moderately fascinating. It is a working ecosystem, of sorts. It is like a primitive civilization and a base animal world. I despise the fact it is entirely American. The word bland comes to mind. Is it ethnocentric or unimaginative? It is definitely narrow and rigid. The differences between factions are practically superficial.

In summation, I would say the system has potential. In its current state, it is little more than a shiny toy, useless to anyone who values their time.

Current theory suggests an asteroid came from outside the galaxy and got all the way to the third planet from the sun, without getting caught in the galaxy's gravitational field. It is an impossible scenario. If the asteroid came from inside the galaxy, where did it come from? Planets and moons do not supernova. What then did happen to the dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs were big. Food is limited. Is it possible dinosaurs ran out of food? Herbivores went first, as they simultaneously starved and got eaten by carnivores. Then the carnivores ate each other. Maybe some of the smaller dinosaurs changed into birds or something else?

Seems more realistic dinosaurs did not reach extinction. Instead, they evolved into birds. Think of the factors: The planet is moving, the galaxy is moving, the rock is moving, the gravitational field is affecting the planet and the rock. The odds of an asteroid colliding with a planet are literally and figuratively astronomic.

A lot of you are work-slaves, less than communist. You think there is merit in working 9-5, 40 hours a week. I say you're assholes. Today, you make 30,000$ a year. Ten years from now, you'll make 100,000$ a year. What is the difference? Nothing, you still work 40 hours a week. Time is far more valuable than material possessions. America is not only the most material nation in the world, it is the most material place in Earth history. Does the Rhinoceros care about materialism? Instead of making more money, why not work fewer hours?

The 24 hour system has no purpose. It was derived from the rotation of the Earth. Humans care about day and night due to foolish animalism. An entire overhaul of math measurements could be in due order.

I really hate world of warcraft. It's the dumbest game in the world. The worst thing about it is the people who play it. The whole game is just about bullshit emotional stimulation. The players are so ridiculous, when anything 'bad' happens, they instantly look for someone to blame. Only a control-freak emotional fuckface cares about blame. The fact these people are the way they are shows what kind of game WoW is. Emotional stimulation... positive reinforcement... more gold, more items, more levels. It's fucking retarded. The people who play WoW are clueless slaves. Some people get payed to work, WoW players pay to work. Even with 1200ms, i'll beat any WoW player 50-0 in a Quake of their choosing. Then those fuckers can blame themselves for being emotional idiots.

Blame is pointless bullshit. It accomplishes nothing. It solves nothing. It is a waste of everything. WoW players, you want emotional stimulation, shoot heroin. Your game is garbage. A bunch of shiny bullshit fit for idiot ignorants. Your feelings mean shit. They can be easily controlled by anyone with a brain and a basic education. The players of a game are reflective of the game itself. The asses playing WoW prove how asshole WoW truly is.

If it can be destroyed, it will be destroyed. If you walk on eggshells, eventually, eggshells will be crushed.

Europe and the United States, united in gaming. Where are the middle-eastern nations? Jordan has two nice queens. I've liked Queen Noor since I saw her on CNN. She gave two interviews in two nights. At the end of the second, she started spinning around in her chair like a child. I've liked her ever since. Queen Rania does all sorts of great things for women. But here in gaming, there is no Jordan. Why isn't the rest of Earth gaming-involved?

Australia: A nation of criminals. They probably couldn't figure out how to steal computers or the internet, so their pirated video games are useless.

I still can't figure out why Australians like Abba so much.

Brazil: Too much soccer? Too many nice women? S's instead of Z'z?

Colombia: This is an easy one.

Galapagos: Obviously, there is a benevolent conspiracy involving iguanas, turtles and hammerhead sharks. They are fully determined to prevent any online gaming, as alien visitors would then misunderstand evolution.

Antarctica: I'm guessing the internet doesn't work well in Antarctica. Living close to a state capital, I can only manage 1200ms. Penguins are a successful hockey team, why can't they succeed in video games? Must be the ping.

N. Korea: No clue.

Iraq: It must be a lack of resolve. If Iraqi's really wanted to, they could compete online. Instead, they choose to sit around snoozing in their twitchy-britches.

England: Ever since the Revolutionary War, England gave up fighting. It is perfectly understandable, and we should not expect any decent force from England for at least exactly 8,362.827432 years.

If these few places are indicative of the other 500 nations, it may be difficult ascertaining a true cause. I'm sure though, there is only one cause. Gaming rhymes with both gay and straight. Bet you didn't know that.

Big government, small government... it's like we're ordering fries from McDonalds. The pursuit of happiness has become the pursuit of happy-meals. The founding fathers of the United States did great things. They were far from perfect, in part because of when our Constitution was written. Darwin did not present his theory of evolution until well after the Constitution was enacted. Darwin was born after the United States was officially founded. I can say, with no doubt, whichever nations include evolution into their structures will exceed all other nations.

Evolution comes in many forms. Natural selection is only one aspect. We, humans, became smart out of necessity. We have weak bodies. Other creatures already took the good physical traits. We could not compete. We defeated the beasts long ago, yet we did not stop evolving intellectually. The lion does not need ultra-sharp razor-claws. It has them because evolution does not stop. Even when you can survive without any real fear of extinction, evolution continues sharpening your claws.

If we, the United States, were to re-structure our Constitution today, taking evolution fully into account, how would it be? Will we, the United States, have to re-structure our Constitution, taking evolution fully into account, if we want to compete with other nations?

What do you think love is? You love cookies, you hate cookies, you're in love with a person... the first two are basic brain functions. The third is a direct product of evolution. Some argue it is like adrenaline - an internal drug. It produces little or no harmful side-effects because we have lived with it for so long. Narcotics produce side-effects, some deadly if you are not careful, because to our bodies, narcotics are alien. If we continue using narcotics, the harmful side-effects will disappear. Why is there a 'war on drugs'? Because of religious idiots who deny evolution, and believe drugs are not tools, but rather spawns of Satan. The nations which more quickly adapt to drug-use will be better off in the long-run. The anti-drug people believe love comes from God, not from evolution, and is somehow supernatural. As love is almost certainly a drug, like a narcotic without harmful side-effects, the anti-drug people are not only completely and utterly ridiculous and wrong, they are also doing great damage to their nations by holding back the inevitability of evolutionary progress. Drugs are the future - tools of the interior, of the mind, rather than of the exterior body. The sooner we master these tools, the better off we will be.

If you do no drugs, you will go to heaven. If you are bad, you go to hell. If you are the victim of someone bad, you get nothing. Let's say your spouse gets murdered. What happens to them? Do they go to heaven? Maybe they were on their way to confession when they got murdered? According to some organized religions, they would go to hell because they were murdered before they were forgiven by God's appointee's. And what happens to you? Maybe the murderer is caught and imprisoned? Not much of a concession. Maybe tax payers should give you a million dollars, because they failed to prevent your spouse's murder? Out of the multiple available options, which would be the best evolutionary path? Can we effectively chart an evolutionary course? Evolution can be a painful process, but when you reach your destination, your survival is more secured.

Survival is what it's all about. The lustful sex you cherish so sluttily. The filet mignon you savor over gluttonously. The money you kill millions to attain. Nations are here for the same reason. If you have no nation, you can easily be conquered by a nation. Evolution is an integral part of survival. Women, on average, prefer eating plants because in nature, men kept the meat for themselves. As you see today, real survival is almost non-existant. Instead, we have social survival. Sometimes men who are not particularly masculine, and are vegetarian, will be characterized as homosexual. Sexuality has nothing to do with diet, although maybe the weaker men, in nature, were denied meat. As survival is our main striving point, moreso than most understand, certainly the nations which adopt a full policy of evolutionary inclusion will better survive than the rest.

Some people believe perfection can be achieved. They are called Quake players. These elitists believe Quake, in its five year-old form, is perfect in every way. These people are wrong. The same people populate the website esreality.com. We find in both Quake and esreality, there is no evolution. Both have become nearly extinct. The seasons will change. You cannot stop the galaxy from moving. What you can do, is prepare for what lies ahead. Evolution or extinction, make your choice. Perpetual stagnation can only result in extinction. As new organisms, alien organisms, become more powerful, you must evolve to defeat them.

In your nation, is evolution an intricate part of your government? If not, your nation may be in danger. You must keep in mind, you only have two choices: evolution or extinction. There are many ways to evolve, and many ways to die. In our 'complex' modern age, evolution must be part of individual life and collective nationalism. The nation that does not evolve will lag behind so much they will certainly be conquered.

The end.

The game is like Super Mario Bros. except the brothers are Christian. The main character is a priest. The game is called 'Small Love', like the tv show. The priest goes around raping boys. He has to navigate the dangerous waters of child-rape. Instead of burning innocent turtles alive, he crucifies police officers and he Grand Inquisitates protective parents, and to deal with nosy vigilantes, he calls on Jesus himself. The boss characters could be like judge's, lawyers and parole officers. When he completes a level, he gets to rape another child.

What do you think? Are internet people trying to escape from their boring mundane lives, or is everyone trying to escape from their boring mundane lives? Will people one day tire of television? Will priests one day tire of child-rape? All good questions... ... ... . . . ►►► º¿º

Everyone hates paying taxes. If we make government casino's, at least then we can pay taxes in a semi-enjoyable way. Maybe we could even occasionally get something in return for our tax-dollars.

Have you ever watched television? Often to the point of banality, you find love stories where couples do some romantic bullshit and they kiss near a crowd full of strangers who proceed to clap enthusiastically. Who are those spectators? They are you. In truth, they are extras. They are meant to represent the viewers. You all sit there, and while you may not physically clap or cheer, you are supposed to feel the same exuberance. The extras are in place to make you feel ok about being a nosy, eavesdropping, perverted voyeur.

Liberal productions are the worst in these cases. Many liberals want everything to be public, like a coalition of depraved Catholics who want all of life to be an ongoing confessional. Some of us though, Americans especially with our 4th amendment, hold great value in privacy. This is contrary to the coercion found in many liberal films, where the protagonist must convert to liberalism/catholicism or be deserted by the person they love.

To exemplify my point, I direct you to the movie, "As Good As It Gets". I find this production to be an atrocity of tremendous magnitude. The liberals: one gay, one black, one single liberated mother, must convert the main character (a typical conservative), into their way of living. If they fail, the man must live out his remaining days in abandoned misery. They attempt all sorts of pleasurable temptations, finally managing to convince him of his own evil ways and even antagonizing him into taking drugs. During the film, it is unclear whether the main character is the protagonist or antagonist. There doesn't seem to be a real antagonist, only a conservative who is the antagonist until converting to the protagonist with his conversion to liberalism. You also find prophetic mentions of health-care concerns when the child of our liberated, liberal, single-mother, angelic, perfect protagonist needs medical attention.

Yes, it is a horrific tale. You can find many others like it. Film can be a powerful thing. Let's take another example. This time, i'll use a conservative nightmare.

The movie is Armageddon. It stars Bruce Willis and other people. In this culmination of everything wrong with the Bush administration, we find a bunch of dumb oil drillers saving the world from a giant asteroid. These people, like all oil workers, have low IQ's and low education-levels. In this case, they must go into space (after almost no training), and plant nukes inside a monstrous meteor. The movie is basically a giant metaphor for oil saving the world. In the end, the main protagonist sacrifices his own life to save humanity. Not only does oil save the world, but apparently, Jesus was an oil-man. Not long after this film was released, the United States installed George Bush.

The media has a great deal of power over common people. Most are completely unaware of the things I have explained. Ignorants may well be controlled by what they watch on television. Someone who likes 'romance' films might romantically dislike you if you value privacy, believing real love is publicly suitable. The non-voyeur or anti-voyeur is made out to be the antagonist, making it so the real equivalent is treated as an antagonist. Many writers are petty idiots, who, if you irritate them, will make you the antagonist in their next production. This power of film, of media in general, is something most are unfamiliar with. Recognizing the methods might require an expertise in literature. Can the common public understand what is being done to them, or will they persist in being puppets and pawns of the media empire?

Writing is supposed to be an art-form. Artists should never become moralists. If they choose to enter politics, religion or moralism, they should learn as much science as they know art. That is, unless they want to damage the world. Artists can be foolish creatures, who for some unknown reason, delude themselves into thinking they are knowledgeable. Maybe they become famous and want to use their fame for something worthwhile. Unfortunately, they don't necessarily have the knowledge to know the difference between worthwhile and worthless. Or worse yet, worthwhile and catastrophic.

Now, I don't claim to know everything. But I do know enough to know how much I don't know (and how much others don't know). I dropped out of high-school when I was 16 and I didn't go to college (just like Einstein). Today though, with the internet, you can educate yourself quite possibly better than any traditional educational institution could. It may not secure you a job like a college degree would, but certainly, an education should amount to more than a decent job. Porn is funny though.

Religions are all gay, or straight, or whatever the proper defamatory term is. Religions are for weak-minded idiots, assholes and slaves. Religious people can't even entertain an idea contrary to their own, much less critically analyze or accept one. Religious people belong in the bowels of the hell they fear so greatly. The U.N. should die immediately, as should all people who support slavery a.k.a. religion.

Hey religious people, if you don't give me all your money, you will spend eternity in hell. If you give me everything I want, you will reach heaven. Start sucking, bitches! Your children are raped by religious people so you can reach heaven.

U.N., you can go fuck yourselves. You have no authority within United States borders. Your resolutions do not supersede the United States constitution. You certainly discredit your entire organization by attempting to infringe on our sovereignty. Your integrity is being eroded as I write. If you continue with your fascist garbage (Hitler also had 'good intentions'), your organization will crumble permanently. We have 10,000 thermo-nuclear bombs. Stay out of America.

Want to be a decent contribution? Try only involving yourself with international relations. Our country is ours. We will gladly kill you if you try stealing our nation.

Ever notice how love is the most commercialized thing in human history? It is closely followed by heaven. People only go to church because they believe doing so will get them to heaven. Churches are rich. People pay good money for a ticket to heaven. People watch romantic comedies for the pleasure, and the decepting possibility things in movies could happen to them. In simple terms, people pay for pleasure, in whatever variety pleasure materializes.

We find three things present in all brain-having creatures: pain, pleasure and fear. I use the words pain and pleasure to mean any type of good or bad feeling. Everything is drawn to pleasure and turned from pain. Fear could mean either drawn to or turned from, but neither will necessarily result in a pleasurable or painful experience. These three devices form the base of all survival instinct and evolutionary change. When the pre-turtle felt pain, it ran but was scarred. Over long periods of time, the scars turned into shell. As the shell grew stronger, the turtle grew slower.

You reject foods you find 'painful', either to the smell or taste. You accept sensations you find pleasurable, regardless of through what sense, emotion, or mental faculty pleasure enters. Deviations from group opinion, for humans, result in a painful experience. Pain leads to fear, which intensifies the feeling of pain. Why is it deviations result in pain? Everything except the base pain/pleasure/fear has developed through evolution. Bats do not have eyesight because they use sonar. Dogs can only see black and white because they predominately use smell. What happened in human history to make us regard deviation as pain? Evidently, you find humans have weak bodies. Before we had tools, we were helpless against any number of vicious nature-beasts. Strength-in-numbers was the only thing sustaining us. When one of our numbers deviated, it endangered whoever remained and exponentially endangered the deviant him or herself.

Let me put things in simpler terms. These three devices are here to ensure life's survival. They start as basic functions, then become more advanced systems. When you put your hand in a fire, it is painful. You then remove your hand, because of the pain. When you have sex, it is pleasurable. This is to ensure survival of the species. Our systems, in some ways, work better than the systems of other species. Many beings will simply rape each other when the time is right. Dogs, for example, will only have sex when the female is in heat. Rape then occurs, which is painful for the female. Our system makes sex pleasurable, which further encourages reproduction (perhaps a bit too much, as overpopulation is becoming a problem).

When you look at what a species finds pleasurable, painful and fearful, you can trace its evolutionary line. You can know what it was like for them, millions of years ago. Evolution is a slow process. You can be sure whatever is here today did not develop overnight. What this means, is you should become familiar with your own instincts. You think they tell you correctly, but in truth, your instincts can be easily manipulated. Religions, politicians and business-people are the most frequent exploiters. Sometimes you fear things, but you do not know why. It is possible you should not fear those things. If you understood why you felt the fear, you may cease its harboring. What was helpful in nature is not necessarily helpful in society.

Next time you experience some kind of painful, pleasurable, or fearful feeling, you may want to determine what is truly causing the response. Is instinct steering correctly, or is it something foolish, left over from nature? If you do not know why you feel the things you feel, it is possible your instincts are misleading you.

Before I go, i'd like to sell some of my new products:

#1. Godzilla Noodles; these Ramen noodles are better than Mothra.

#2. Hardcore Gangster; these candy bars will gank you with gats if you don't eat them (they come complete with trademarked Eazy-E wrappers).

And be sure to visit my new Disneyworld attraction Manatee Insanity, where Manatee's use boat propellers to kill people. You can experience the real thrill of peacefully living your life when suddenly a boat propeller kills you!

And don't listen to Mr. Rogers. His neighborhood is full of crackhouses.

Who loves ions?

There are many different ways of thinking. Some people think in terms of positive and negative. I call them dickheads, and they say, "Dude man, you're so negative.". Other times I call them gems of Atlantis, to which they reply, "Dude man, I feel the positive vibe.". Personally, I think these simple ways of thinking are only fit for the ass of a baboon.

When I was playing WoW earlier, a friend of mine remarked on how old we're getting. I could have told him to think positively, but instead, I said, "Well 27 ain't shit compared to 20 trillion.". Even though the language is crass, it is adequately balanced by higher thinking known as relativity. I say higher because you can learn relativity in low-level classes such as philosophy 101.

Now, how many other ways could you reply to his remark?

If I was a moralist, I might say, "It is wrong to think of such things."
If I was an absolutist, maybe I would say, "Age is irrelevant. Eternity is infinite."
If I was a pluralist, I could say, "Some people do get older."
If I was an empiricist, "We have more experience now."
A materialist, "And think of how many possessions we have today."
Cynic, "Trying to sell me a youth formula?"
Skeptic, "Maybe we're not really so old?"
Joker, "Older than your mom!"
A pluralistic relativist, "Older than some, not as old as others."
An absolutist relativist, "We're younger than everyone older."
Generic scientist, "Fairly young really, in human terms."

I'm sure you can extrapolate the rest from there. I'm not a mathematician, but i'm guessing it would take forever to go over every combination.

The point is, there are many different ways of being. Negative and positive are only fit for dumb beasts driven by mere instinct. Next time you are afraid of 'bringing me down', you should instead consider something more advanced. Positive and negative, emotional stimulation, manipulation of instinct; they might do more harm than good, in more intellectual stages of existence (certainly, we find evidence of this claim when religions and politicians 'shepherd' the non-sheep).

Higher thinking of the non-beast human. Some pathetic individuals spend their entire adult lives driven by sexuality. Reproduction and breathing are equally important. We need both to survive. But this is different from the ignorants who are deluded into thinking the losing of one's virginity or high frequency of sexual intercourse is somehow important in and of itself. Only reproduction is important. With modern science, you can reproduce without having sex. If you have children, you should do it with someone virginal - someone not overcome by their mechanical instincts and the pressure of ignorant society. When you have children with animals, you move backwards on the evolutionary chain (your descendants suffer for your lack of self-control).

There is no conclusion here. Instead, there is an assignment (for everyone who wants a higher education). The assignment is to tell me what kind of thinking is displayed in the previous paragraph.

How many times in the Bible and Qu'Ran do you find mentions of light and darkness? The techniques are always used in the same fashion. They call it shepherding, I call it slavery. It relies on the propagation of ignorance, a.k.a. 'faith' or 'belief'. The faithful are rendered perpetually weak-minded, incapable of developing the strength necessary for freedom. At best, religion is a cheap placebo. Why use a placebo when today we have the real thing? Like Ahab, I will not rest until religion is rotting at the bottom of the sea, where it dutifully belongs.

When darkness comes over you, you feel the fear and pain of billions of years before you, when humans were tortured night after night, barely able to survive the beasts of ancient times. These religions bring those pains back to you, in order to steal your money and command you to kill their opponents. And who are their opponents, who you ruthlessly destroy, falsely believing your actions are anointed by God? Are they evil? Do they deserve the death you bring them? No... not evil. More like, they discovered a Priest was raping a child, and had to be silenced to ensure the church could not be discredited.

And what good are religions? The placebo of the masses? Any good that religions do can be better done by something else. Religions... using your survival instincts to 'shepherd' you. They deceive you, lie to you, make you live in a fantasy world. Your whole life is gone before you know it exists. That is religion, it makes you kill and torture the innocent, all for money and power. Real sheep do not kill. Send out your slaves, to tear apart women and children, to rend flesh by the sword, for that is the will of the Lord. You will be rewarded with an eternity of light and safety, where you can fly around in the white-clouds, far away from the darkness of night and the void of emptiness it encompasses.

As we travel to the moon, we find space is not evil. Bit inhospitable, at most. The darkness, which seems to stretch on forever, is clearly not evil or anything close. In fact, it is full of life. It is life. Here on Earth, many creatures thrive at night, none of which are evil. Mice, owls, and bats are some of the more commonly known. Bats, of course, have no vision. They use sonar. Night is safer for them, the opposite of ourselves. If religion wanted to 'shepherd' bats, they would reverse their night and day poetry.

So how do we destroy this abomination known as religion? A few harpoons will not suffice. What we face is powerful mind-control. Doubt, denial, and delusion are only the beginning. Maybe CTF with only one flag would work? Maybe a full, detailed dissection of how religion controls people? That will not defeat the three D's though. Possibly, something needs to replace religion? Yes, it must be... slaves cannot function alone, not at first.

I will leave you now, to deliberate on a replacement. Something to help transition from slavery to freedom. In the mean-time, be sure you do not fall victim. They seek you when you are weakest. When you have hit 'rock-bottom', or when you are a newborn infant. If any of you become a newborn infant soon, be extra careful. Or at least, be protective of your infants and children. Faith does not make you stronger, knowledge makes you stronger.

Artists add a great deal to our lives. I wouldn't want to live without art. But is there a downside? Occasionally, an artist will become political or religious. Maybe they truly believe what they see is real. When this happens, it can have a negative impact.

Exhibit A: When an artist looks at a chair, they see color, texture, line, balance, etc. What they fail to see is everything else, including things invisible to the bare human eye, such as atoms and molecules.

Exhibit B: Take a look at this Van Gogh painting. It is beautiful, but what is Van Gogh missing? Something like this, maybe? (be sure to read the 'more info')

When artists discuss morality, or put forth notions of morality, many people accept those notions and live by them, as if they are actual.

In some works of art, you may find mentions of light and dark, meaning good and evil, when any scientist knows, light and dark are merely interpreted by the brain as safety and danger, because of our dependence on vision, our inability to see in the dark, and our many countless years in nature (without fire or other sources of artificial light; which of course are products of evolution, developed specifically to fight darkness).

You may also find mentions of strength and weakness, which are lesser than the notions of tyranny and evolution. It may appear, on the surface, when the strong hurts the weak, it is an act of evil. Is the Lion evil when it hurts the Gazelle? If the turtle was never hurt, it would never have developed its shell.

Through pain, we evolve. It is the way of the Universe. It always has been, and always will be. We would not have our diverse species without pain. We would not survive without pain. How can artists know any of this, when their expert lies in interpreting surfaces? In science, we find the human eye is often the exact opposite of correct. Maybe you think hot air is being blown out, when really cold air is being sucked in?

The Universe is a mysterious place. Life is a mysterious thing. I'm willing to wager, life does not end with death. Certainly though, there is no heaven or hell. Those are human notions, obviously conceived by primitive men. What really exists is far more mysterious and beautiful than any human could conjure. Which doesn't mean you should kill yourself to get there sooner.

Artists should learn science. It would be better for everyone.

Mark Twain once said, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.". Add the internet to that equation and what do you get???????????????????????????? All those question marks cost me almost nothing. You see, little creatures, humanity is a chain-reaction. If I tell five people, and they each tell five, and each of those five tell 50, it's a lot of stuff. On the internet, this process is multiplied. The multiplication varies, of course, and can be further increased through normal media partners. If, through the internet, I get the message to CNN, all CNN viewers, in addition to internet people, will receive the message.

Now that you all know a little bit more than before, what do you think???????? Is the internet different than maybe you thought? More useful? How much power can be achieved through competent use of the internet? A place for nerds, or a place for those who rule the world?

Maybe I tell you these secrets because I pity slaves, and I care not for their pathetic company. I'm lonely, the war is over, and while Maggie is nice, the rest of you are a bunch of low-lifes. Slaves have uses, but good company they are not. Please, use the knowledge I give you to free yourselves. Don't listen to the idiots who tell you your lives are failures because you haven't achieved a worthless paycheck-job or gotten a girlfriend (wow, what a fucking accomplishment). Those fucks who tell you about living in your mothers basement, they think moving out of the basement is a massive victory. And you know what? That is the biggest success those 'winners' will ever have. They are true victors of 'life' since life is merely a game, to be won or lost.

The internet was created by the military, for communication purposes. What war can be waged through the internet? Winston Churchill once said, “Never make an enemy of someone who buys paper by the ton, and ink by the barrel.”. All of you can achieve more power than could ever be managed before the inception of the internet. And what do you do with this power? Strive for plusses, and the praise of random strangers?

How many of you are familiar with something called, 'The Bible'? What do you think The Bible is? It's a bunch of damn nonsense in a book. Same as the internet, but not nearly as powerful. Maybe you can learn, so I personally will not be bored out of my damned mind by a bunch of thoughtless drones. I don't care about the world, I care about my own personal boredom. Where is the challenge in beating helpless slaves?

Hahaha! I'm only kidding. The internet is nothing more than another amusement park, much like life itself. Although, I was not kidding about Maggie, she is better than the rest of you 'cause she's awesome and you are all awesome too but not as awesome as her. You might wonder who Maggie is, but you shouldn't, because you'll never know. What you should think about is what I will do to you, or rather, what Hitler and Goebbels would do, if they had access to the internet.

Fucking fuck. Why do people want censorship? I can somewhat understand the censoring of horrific violence, like when Iraqi's beheaded that guy. But words? How can words possibly be so bad they warrant censoring? They're all there together, in the dictionary. Should we censor dictionaries, because kids might read them (haha)? Kids care less about cursing than adults. Simple reality is, people only care about curse words 'cause some dickhead (probably religious), told them cursing was sinful or some crap like that. This caused them to shut out curse words from themselves, which led to a hypersensitivity towards curse words. It's called evolution, mother-fuckers.

The turtle did not always a shell. Why did it develop one? Obviously, to protect itself from harm that would kill it, or make it otherwise unfit to live in this world. What we should be doing is desensitizing people to cursing, by cursing as often as possible (like in Karate, when you punch the makiwara for ten years). Eventually, when people no longer give a fuck, we can stop worrying about all this retarded censorship bullshit. Most people today already don't care.

If you're talking about censorship for political purposes, it's an entirely different subject. I'm only talking about the censoring of specific words. So, while all you dickheads, with your hypersensitive bullshit, brought on by overprotective cocksuckers, continue bitching at me for causing you 'emotional distress' (fuck you), i'll be evolving. Apparently, i'm evil, because you're weak.

Not every artist is a scientist; not every scientist is an artist; some people are both artists and scientists. You want the truth, don't listen to only-artists. Above all, if you want the truth, do not listen to religious people. Thanks Honest Abe, for inspiring me.

Many people think sharks will eat them. Like the Great White in Jaws. Truth is, they will eat you. Whenever you go into water, be afraid. If the water is in your bathtub, who knows, maybe a shark will eat you. The question though, is 'why'. Why do sharks eat you? To find the answer, I look to Quake.

When you're in dm6, if a player finds you, they might attack. They do this because your hide is of value to them.

When you're in t4, the same thing happens.

When you're in the shower, a shark might attack.

See the similarities?

The shark uses teeth and jaws to eat you. The Quake player uses lightning guns and rail guns and machine guns and plasmaguns and shotguns and rocket launchers. The two creatures are both hungry. They both need food to survive.

I'm only kidding, of course. Sharks will not eat you. They don't like humans because humans are not water creatures. You like the things you like because of your ancestors. Taste is acquired over billions of years. If you are diving or snorkeling with sharks, you don't have to worry. If you move towards them, they may attack in self-defense. Long as you remain still or do not move towards them, there is no need to fear.

Also, not everyone plays Quake for trophies. Some people like the way it feels.

We all know there's a recession/depression thing going on. It's depressing and recessiony. Could there be a silver lining on this modern Greek tragedy? I'd say the answer is yes. This economic conundrum can be helpful, to some. Esports might be one of the beneficiaries.

Let's look at how past depressions affected sports.

65 million years ago, the Dinosaur depression was reaching its peak. With all the dead dinosaurs around, other creatures, smaller creatures, found a great deal of sport in hording Dinosaur corpses.

During the 'Great Depression' (when children would happily eat human flesh to survive), it was difficult for parents to drive their children to sports practice. When you're driving cross-country in large, inefficient vehicles, it can be expensive. Flying or taking a train isn't much better. Through the magic of internets, all that money can go into your childrens mouths instead of thin-air.

When the Third Reich came into being, their extreme fascism destroyed the German economy. What emerged was the greatest sporting event in human history. Millions of Jews were killed, to the great glee of Germany. How else could the Germans have survived those difficult economic times? They have Jews and sports to thank.

For eSports, all you need is a single game, a computer and a decent internet connection. Everyone already has computers and decent connections. The recession/depression will not change that. Fact is, eSports is significantly cheaper. Professional eSports could also be cheaper. If people stop with the lan sillyness (expensivo), and go with what couldn't be cheaper, we could have legitimate professional sporting at a recession-proof price. This is not a commercial, it's the truth.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a jump-rope competition to attend. These days, jump-ropes are like glow-sticks. Fuckin' trips you out when they do crazy tricks. All they have to do is spike everyone's drinks with X and jump-roping will be the next big thing.

Can homosexuals be trusted? Let's look at the facts.

Homosexuality itself is often explained through pheromones. If sexuality is determined solely by pheromones, why is it some homosexuals act feminine or masculine, in opposition to their gender? Isn't it true masculinity and femininity are determined almost entirely through estrogen and testosterone? If so, it means the butch lesbian and the fairy gay are behaving ungenderly for potentially the wrong reasons.

When you think about it, if gays are gay, why would they be attracted to a woman with no tits and a dick? Maybe because it is just a pheromone thing. Do the fairy gays have to deliberately act feminine? Do they have different levels of estrogen and testosterone? How genuine is their behavior, and could a heterosexual male act equally feminine? If there was no group pressure to act genderly, would more heterosexuals behave ungenderly?

My personal opinion is that all homosexuals should be burned to death, and when new homosexuals are formed, they should be aborted. I have this opinion because i'm pro-life. In the mean-time, I have to continue questioning the behavior of homosexuals (aside from the homosexuality, which I personally have no actual problem with).

Website owners and administrators are awfully bourgeois. Here we are, doing all the work, getting payed nothing. What motivates people to be good little forum-users? The wrath of website admins? What's to stop webizens from sabotaging? If the proletariat were profiting from their contributions, sabotaging the site would be sabotaging themselves. Without real motive, why doesn't the internet denigrate into total anarchy?

Some predict a decline in the civility of internet-user behavior. I predict innovation will change the purpose of internet discourse. Humans and their oxygen breathing, are not so good at creating artificial environments. The beast has needs and wants. To create a successful artificial environment, one must provide more than man-dictated punishment and reward. Learning from the Universe is key to properly adapting the internet for human solicitation.

What motivates humans? Food, reproduction, shelter, safety, clothing, medicine... pleasure. Most of these things can be acquired with money. When people spend time and energy, they expect something valuable returned.

We're all familiar with internet dialogue: Cursing... which I personally detest, sexual harassment, psychological profiling, and all sorts of other less-than-desirable behavior. In typical human fashion, the solution to everything is imprisonment and torture. Bring the torches and pitchforks to drive out the monster. This is the 21st century though, and speech is no longer illegal. What site design would effectively move internet-culture to a place of true usefulness?

Through sabotage, the common person can enact change. What choice do sites have, if everyone revolts? The sites go out of business, or they adapt. It is a simple process of evolution. I'm not talking communism, ignore the spectre hanging over the internet. Let's get serious... how many of you want to die? Ok, back to before. I was talking about the fact we, the people, who make these websites what they are, do all the work yet get payed none of the profits. Is it really any wonder the internet produces such crude behavior?

I issue a challenge to website designers: Find a way to mold behavior through intelligent site-design. There will always be deviants, regardless. This is one fact of many you should keep close while designing. People will be people. You cannot change nature. Exploitation cannot succeed in the long-term. When people realize their trades are unfair, they will cease any further business with the offending parties. Sabotage may well occur, if victims find no alternative.

I patiently await your inventions. You will receive the rewards you earn.

Is there enough cursing? If we look at recent interviews, we find a shocking lack of curse-words. Here's a quote from a recent Fox interview, "Firstly what do you think about strenx? You played against him and you watched him. Do you know he was that good? I saw his game at French ESWC 2008 qualifier and little bit online. He is probably one of the best aimer in the world right now. I don't know why he didn't play so well in San Jose but... I mean he was good. Top 2 is a good achievement.". As you can see, no cursing. Is it an epidemic, or a short-term flu? Let us examine recent news: "ESL Pro Series UK To Feature Duel Game", "FD CQ3 2v2: 3rd Round", "CPM TDM NationsCup: Week 1"... not a single curse word. I'd say there's a fucking problem.

What kind of bloody cunt fuck wants no cursing? Some shithole religious assfuck? Fuck them, those fucks are wrong. They think kids give a fucking fuck about cursing? Only dipshit adults give a nuts fuck. Sports need more cursing, because cursing is healthy. 12 out of 10 scientific studies prove conclusively, cursing is good for the psyche.

When some fuckfuck said 'shit', everyone loved it. Why do people now act like we're in some kind of hetero-only church choir? Fuck all that straight shit. We need at least 1% gayness, to be any fucking decent. And 1% gayness means 20% cursing. I'm sick of all this bullshit, where there is no cursing. I don't wish all religions would die a horrible, torturous, painful death for no good reason. God and religion are two separate things. If God didn't like cursing, God would not bless me every day with the magical ability to curse your fucking brains out.

So where the fuck is the cursing? Why am I the only mother-fucker doing his mother-fucking duty? Duty-free? Fuck no, not if it means no cursing. Back in the old days, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, gamers used to fucking curse. They worshiped Satan and only cared about killing every fuck in sight. Demon fucking rules, not pro-rules. 30 seconds on the fucking megahealth, or how about, you don't get the megahealth, sAtan fucking eats your fucking skull while you scream in pain.

I don't work for the government, no matter what anyone tells you.

We are entering a new age of humanity. We can walk forward, as one; or maybe as 6.5 billion, excluding deviants. The fusion of humanity? We use fusion in thermo-nuclear bombs to create massive destruction. We still can't get fusion generators working. Maybe this global-fusion idea isn't so good?

Some people discuss the 'single world government'. Isn't a deviant like myself proof it wouldn't work? Deviants will always exist - it is part of nature. Additionally, you have to ask yourself, is a single world government necessary? To quote Thomas Paine, "Government, even in its best form is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one.". Why then would we endanger ourselves by adding more unnecessary government?

Single world government, united as a species... it is absolutist. We deviate for the purpose of evolution. If the single united group is incorrect, humanity will perish. When we are divided, maybe one group goes the wrong way and dies. If so, humanity can learn from their mistakes.

Your brain is like a machine. If you don't control it, it will control you. Like a machine, it does not definitively know what is best. Maybe it makes you feel unity is good. If and when it happens, smack yourself in the face. Keep doing the same until eventually, the brain stops delivering pleasure upon notions of unity (this process may take several million years).

Shout-out to hotforwords, who uses sexuality to lure fools into educational traps. Peace to Magi.

Assholes, instead of competing with other sports, why not offer something no other sports can? Esports can make it so whenever you want, you can watch a live professional game, assholes. With GTV and the internet, it isn't expensive or difficult. If it's 1v1, and each asshole match is 2 hours long, you only need 24 players worldwide. Because it is always close to prime-time somewhere, in asshole-land, the model is financially lucrative.

I love WoW so much, I play it all the time. I run around for hours, automatically. The running isn't for fun, I do it to get somewhere. Sometimes it takes hours and hours of auto-running and getting auto-stuck on auto-terrain. Now that i'm thinking about it, that part isn't fun at all. Of course, once you get your mount, it doesn't matter. Like when you accidentally destroy your elite mount and then you have to spend another 1,000g to get a new one. Wait a second, that part isn't fun either. Ok, how about the part where you attack the creature, and you sit there while the sword auto-swings and sometimes hits and the thing dies or you die. Damnit... WoW can be fun, I swear. There are so many pretty colors. The spells twinkle. Gaining a level is like getting an erection. I feel so powerful, like some kind of powerful creature, when I smite thee weak level 2 creatures with my massive level 23 sword-cock. It takes two hands just to hold!

I remember when WoW was new. My brother got banned for creating a dancing stripper-bot right there by the auction house in Orgrimmar. All the tips went with him. Back then, you got to lvl 60 then you ran through the same instances over and over, with people bitching the whole time about rolling or not rolling... and they weren't talking about ecstacy. My character was a skeleton warlock. There was a spell where you could impregnate a monster, then when you kill it, a demon emerges. The demon did not care who summoned it, it would kill anything friend or foe. The most fun I had in WoW was going to a newbie lvl 10 village, summoning the indiscriminatory demon and setting it loose on my own horde newbie team-mates. I loved watching it kill all of them over and over and over again, as they tried to run and hide. These days, there are no newbies left. You can have almost the whole game world to yourself. It's kind of lonely really, just you and the robots...

On that note, i'd like to sing a song.

The robots in wow
are there for you

they'll never leave
like that cheap prostitute would do

they'll be there forever
or until subscriptions run dry

the robots in wow
are there for you.

Well WoW fans, it's time for me to go play WoW. See you all next time.

I prefer FPS's because they allow me to progress at my own pace. In an rpg, to level I have to kill 100 monsters, regardless. The only difference between me and the next person is how efficiently those monsters are dispatched. In an FPS though, maybe I only need to kill 5 people. My skills improve as quickly as I make them. If I want to cast a fire spell on an ice monster, I can't unless i've acquired a fire spell. In an FPS though, as soon as I develop a new strategy, it can be used. The game does not hold you back.

If you were a poor player, you wouldn't like FPS's much. You would want assistance from the game. You would want better players handicapped. You would want trophies to show off your computer-assisted accomplishments. Yes, non-FPS players are sad creatures. It isn't exclusively non-FPS though. Many FPS players (counter-strike), are also insecure. But the worst games are ones like WoW. You push a button, it does the rest. The game is an exercise in positive reinforcement. It gets so bad, when anything negative happens, no matter how insignificant, people completely freak-out.

So what is it about people and games? The game is like a drug for them? They enjoy having their hands held while they cross the street? Is it true only a small percentage of people feel restricted in genres like MMO's? Is it more difficult making games with fewer restrictions, or is positive reinforcement the main selling-point? Some people feel like they make no progress, unless they have trophies to show. The trophies may come in the form of levels or items... without these indicators, these stimulaters, are people left uninterested?

Overall, in an FPS, the player has more control. There is more self-reliance. Some might even say, MMO players are communists. They depend on visible trophies and government-assistance. Not enough people understand the difference between self-reliance and selfishness. Self-reliance is a process of growth. It is not selfish, and actually, when done correctly, is helpful to everyone. Of course, there is no such thing as absolute self-reliance. In FPS games, you find the right kind of self-reliance. Unless you're a baby, no one should put food in your mouth. Maybe they purchase the food and prepare it for you, but you should at least do the literal placing in mouth part.

What can we learn about people by the video games they play? We can learn RPG players are communists and FPS players (except CS players), are awesomeists. We can learn how some people are superficial and shallow, attaining false love by flashing their breasts, or showing how big their 'level' is. These sad people don't love themselves, believing they can only receive affection through shallow interactions and vast numbers of acquaintances. FPS players have nothing to show, for they are not shallow people (aside from CS players). They don't need to show things, because they have knowledge and they don't care about the ignorant assertions of others.

There are only 24 hours in a day. You can either have shallow relationships with lots of people or full relationships with a few.

I hope it is now clear to everyone why I personally prefer FPS's. Have a shithole new-year and go fuck yourselves.

Suck Hitler's cock, Arnold SchwarzeAustria.

But instead, I have an invention.

I switched from CRT to TFT widescreen. Honesterily, there are advantages. I'd suggest pro-gayming makes the same switch. We all like low-fov, but high fov, so WS does the bothz.

My real invention though is, energy, fuck-face-cunt-asses.

Let's say, you build a ring, around the planet, the center of gravity being in the center... the object moving along the ring would never stop, as it would always move towards the Earth's core. I'm talking unlimited energy. Ultimate over-unity, but requires massive global, political and engineering cooperation. Can gay ass humans fags conjure enough cuntatry to hook us up?

About a year ago, I began crusading for Vampire rights. I first went to Mexico, a Vampire strong-hold. I dealt with accommodating Vampire's and opportunistic humans. Shortly thereafter, HBO made a mockery of the Vampire endeavor, and in doing so, they made a mockery of all civil-rights endeavors. If HBO thinks persecution is a joke, maybe it is time I canceled my subscription. Vampires have been misrepresented by the liberal media for many millenia.

Point A: The media makes Vampire's out to be monsters, creatures of the night who threaten poor innocent humans (you know, humans, the one's who wage world wars). Maybe Vampire's do prefer the night, but many other creature's also favor the night, such as bats and owls.

The liberal media portrays Vampire's as idiots. They show films of Vampire's wandering into the sunlight, being killed by its rays. As if Vampire's are so dumb, they haven't figured out how to cover their bodies with clothing and sunglasses.

They claim Vampires want, nay need, to drink your blood for survival (thus killing you, or turning you into a Vampire). Modern science allows Vampires to easily purchase the blood they need, on a completely voluntary basis. Vampires pay top-dollar for quality blood, something you can't find from a Blood Donation center (which won't pay you a dime). Humans, on the contrary, slaughter by the billions (when they don't need to kill anything more than plants).

How often do you see video's of Vampire's sucking blood and biting necks? Now tell me, when was the last time a Vampire bit your neck? When was the last time a Vampire bit the neck of someone you know? The media, to put it plainly, is fraudulent. Worse yet, according to my research, the liberal media is controlled by anti-Vampire lobbyists.

It is perfectly clear what's going on here. Human-Vampire peace is a threat to corporate profits. We cannot allow corporations to facilitate murder, torture, or any other form of persecution. We must down-size corporate power, allowing all creature's to enjoy the same rights we humans enjoy (this includes skeletons, zombies, and of course, Vampire's).

I repeat: Greed must not be allowed to dictate law. Until Vampire rights are secured, Vampire's will continue their march, filing lawsuits where applicable.

In this nuclear age of advanced military technology, we don't need people good at war - we need people good at peace.

Does New Orleans drown because of Poseidan's wrath? Are scientists engaging in an anti-oil conspiracy?

I am from New Orleans, born and raised. I moved away 7 years ago, accidentally. It was for the best though, as time has shown (thank you, lady-luck). After Katrina, the city was fucked. Now there is another 'Cane, possibly worse. Moreso because the city has not recovered.

I lived there roughly 20 years. Hurricanes were always a regular occurrence. Back then though, we welcomed them. They meant a vacation from school. Or, for older people, a hurricane party. Today, the hurricanes are too strong for any celebration. As long as i've been alive, New Orleans has been below sea-level. It was never a problem though, no matter how many category 1, 2, or 3 hurricanes came along. Are the extreme hurricanes of the past few years evidence enough for global warming doubters? Is New Orleans only one of the first cities to be destroyed? Was New Orleans targeted by Poseidan, because of its French and Spanish backgrounds? Will these hurricanes decrease the quality of regional sea-food?

Maybe we should question our oil-drilling desires. In foolish America's reach for cheap gas, we forget impact on the environment. Cheap gas is great... energy independence is great... but shouldn't our concerns also stretch to the cleanliness of cheap, independent energy? Should we require oil companies to develop gas-pollution counter-agents? Is the loss of major cities worth cheaper prices at a gas-pump? Should we reward Exxon-Mobil with record-profits, to the tune of great cultures drowning?

Nevermind, rednecks believe there is something virtuous in being a redneck. Stupidity begets stupidity, as it may be.

People commonly advocate gun-rights in favor of 'hunting'. Humans, while always strong gatherers, have never been strong hunters. What did humans hunt, when still in nature? Did they go after lions, tigers and bears? No... they went after the most harmless of things (cows, chickens, pigs, and fish). Why do you think these beasts taste so good to humans? 'Cause they just do? 'Cause God made 'em that way? No... it is an acquired taste. The rest of our food consisted of things even less threatening (plants and eggs).

Human hunters of today, without tools created by someone other than themselves (and education given/created by others), would be incapable of hunting even the most harmless of creatures. Is that the mark of a great hunter? If we were truly hunters, it would come naturally. We would have all the tools necessary, born into our brains and bodies, like real hunters have (cats and hawks, for example). The tools we have now weren't even developed for hunting. They were created to protect humans from other humans.

We are good hunters like we are good runners or swimmers. If we build cars, we can 'run' faster than anything. If we build boats, we can 'swim' faster. Without these tools though, we are worthless.

Where does the hunter-myth come from? Why does it still exist? Who propagates the myth, and to what end? How can we justify the tyranny of hunting?

I leave you now to ponder these questions. I hope you will put human-hunters under the microscope to ascertain their true place in history.

In the United States, there are basically two political parties: the Democratic party and the Republican party. These are only labels. The Democratic is actually the American party, comprised mostly of real, true Americans. The Republican party is the white supremacist party, a completely anti-American group.

The various sects of Republicans include neo-Nazi's, KKK members, confederates (the first major anti-American cancerous element), clueless idiots who believe the Republican party is virtuous and patriotic, and greedy scum who exchange votes for bribes coming in the form of tax-breaks (it's like voting for Hitler because he gave you $1,000 you don't need).

In this nation, a civil war has been raging for 150 years. It began with the original civil war, which Americans are all familiar with. What people do not know is how the civil war never ended, it only changed forms. If you think about it, why would a massive anti-American movement, made by people who were such enemies of America they would start a war over their hatred and hostility, simply give up their conquest when they could continue by infiltrating the United States government and changing the entire country into what they wanted? A horrible, brutal war occurs, then the loser simply says, 'ok, you win, let's hold hands and enjoy rainbows'? Definitely not... they put down guns and picked up politics, knowing it was legal to take government positions.

The Republican deception runs so deep, the American people do not realize the Republican party is an anti-American white supremacist group (the people fail to realize this, even though, in this nation of extreme ethnic diversity, the Republican party consists of roughly 90% white people - a fact you could say is hiding in plain sight). The Republicans even manage to convince clueless fools of this nation how the Republican party is the patriotic party (the United States is supposed to be a nation of equality for everyone, hence the entire Constitution; e.g. freedom of speech for everyone, not just for white people). They use every trick conceivable to distract people from the truth, deceive people of Republican intentions, erode American principles, and obtain votes by any means possible.

If you are wondering, the Republican party is roughly 100% responsible for the Iraq and Vietnam wars. They are also responsible for the 'War on Drugs', a massive failure as a movement and the single greatest violation of the Constitution (4th and 8th amendments), next to prohibition (virtually the same as the War on Drugs, carried out by the same people). And yes, the Nazi-caliber War on Terror, of course, the work of the Republican Hitler George Bush.

The Democratic party? They are responsible for American involvement in WWI and WWII, and in no other major wars. They uphold the Constitution as much as possible, considering the damage done by Republicans. They raise taxes when taxes need to be raised (which Republicans use as evidence of so-called 'liberalism'); they know people do not like their taxes raised (who doesn't know this?), but unlike Republicans, they do not resort to bribes for votes. The Democratic party fully practices American principles; they were responsible for the equal rights movements of both women and non-whites. The party is made up of all different ethnic and religious groups (Republicans are practically all Christians, even though, in this country, the church and state are supposed to be separated). And, they fully practice democracy (unlike Republicans, who act as dictators).

The Republican party is a group of traitors, who constantly border on treason.

You should not hate the United States. You should hate the Republican party. They are the one's who do everything the United States is hated for. The Democratic party fights them, but wars are not easy to win. I am certain though, the Democratic party would welcome allies from around the world. A great deal of global pressure could be put on the Republican party, causing its collapse. On the same token, a great deal of support could be given to the Democratic party, helping it over-come Republican obstacles. When the Republican party is eliminated, the problems coming from the United States will be gone.

Without an intelligent, properly educated populace, neither a democracy nor republic can survive. How could they survive when the voters are so stupid they vote for all the wrong people and all the wrong things? Certainly, if the democracy and/or republic falls, so does freedom.

Politicians are adept at mind-control. Since the beginning of civilization, aristocrats educated themselves and their off-spring, while they kept the general public stupid and ignorant. This is because, the dumber the people are, the easier they are to control. Politicians do everything they can to make you dumb and keep you dumb; and in voting countries, to keep you from voting or at least voting intelligently. It is a practice as old as politics itself.

The solution? Thomas Jefferson devised the public education system. Its sole purpose was to properly educate the entire nation of voters and future voters. Proper education means giving the people what they need to be good voters - what they need to remain free. This purpose has been warped by the authoritarian element within the nation. They have changed the education system, deliberately failing to adequately inform students of the system's actual purpose and to prepare students for the reality of sustaining a free society. The system is so poor now, students hate one of the main things keeping them free. The majority of students are so stupid and spoiled, they will likely live in a joyful fantasy world until the very moment reality becomes impossible to ignore.

While proper education is crucial, and absolutely necessary for sustaining freedom, it does not cure stupidity itself. In fact, proper education mostly cures ignorance. What then is the solution to stupidity?

Clearly, the main solution is good breeding. Throughout history, people have been deluded into thinking pure-breeding is good and mix-breeding is bad. This is the complete opposite of true. It has been learned, pure-breeding actually = in-breeding, while mix-breeding effectively produces the opposite of in-breeding. This means, if you are white, you should breed with someone who isn't white. If you look at the United States voting population, all of the small-town people are poorly educated and in-bred (small-town = small gene-pool). The largest part of the Republican party constituency comes from small-town America (which is comprised almost exclusively of one ethnicity - white). The average IQ of Republicans is roughly 30 points lower than Democrats (who are overwhelming made up of all types of diverse ethnicities and come mostly from large cities, a.k.a. large gene-pools). It should come as no surprise how the lower IQ, in-bred Republican constituency is also the religious constituency.

There are other ways of curing stupidity, such as exercising your brain, keeping your brain healthy, and spending your life in intellectual pursuit (these help additionally through evolution). The gains may well be minor though. Any methods other than good-breeding and proper education would likely require greater incentive, or the general public would resist utilizing them voluntarily.

Maybe someday, when stupidity and ignorance are gone, Republicans will stop thinking conservatism + libertarianism = conservatism (as if 1+1 = 1). Maybe then, freedom can be assured, while democracies and republics can thrive.

As some of you may know, Bush and the Republicans (the American Nazi party), have been exploiting the Olympics for fascist political gain. They bought key commentators, instructing them to repeat the term 'conservative' whenever a good play is made. They never use the word 'liberal', even though the converse of conservative play would be liberal play (and there certainly has been many occasions when the term could accurately apply). It is the same method they use in the NFL. As the Goebbels quote goes, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over". The American Olympics media even include Bush as a welcomed guest in general at the Olympics and special guest among popular, successful Olympic competitors.

For those who are unaware, there are four basic government forms: on top, there is authoritarianism, on the bottom, the opposite of authoritarianism - libertarianism; on the left is liberalism, on the right conservatism. Communism = authoritarianism + liberalism; fascism = authoritarianism + conservatism. Liberalism does not equal communism and conservatism does not equal fascism. The United States is supposed to be a country of liberty (which is why we have a Statue of Liberty). In this country, liberalism and conservatism are ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that truly matters is liberty vs. authority. When fascism, communism or any other form of authoritarianism takes hold, the country has lost its way. With the power we have, any form of authoritarianism taking hold could be extremely dangerous for the country and beyond.

I would encourage the world to see the grim reality hiding below the surface of normalcy. If you think you can spot Hitler by picking out the raving lunatics, try reading 'Inside the Third Reich' by Albert Speer. It shows how Hitler was actually a warm, fatherly figure - a 'patriotic Christian' like all Nazi's were (and apparently, still are). Sometimes, the people you think are the most evil are really the most virtuous (and vice versa). It should be obvious why this seeming anomaly occurs - if evil people exposed their evil, they could not achieve their evil deeds. Good people know they are not evil, therefore they care not for your poor perception.

It is a shame something like the Olympics must once again be tainted by the worst of politics. It is a worse shame if the propaganda campaign succeeds, allowing fascism in America to survive even longer.

Some people have A.D.D., some have S.A.D.; now, psychiatrists have ascertained another problem aptly dubbed 'Black Skin Disorder'. Fact is, everyone must have blonde hair and blue eyes, or they will become homeless/prematurely dead. The system is perfect, therefore anyone who is not part of the majority must be imperfect - diseased - disordered - sick - ill - something to be cast aside, ostracized and otherwise killed or kured.

Luckily, for all these ill-people (who were diagnosed by medical professionals having no financial or personal interest on the matter... at all... whatsoever... and are themselves perfect in every way, especially in their diagnosis of disorders), there is a cure for BSD. Your disorder is obviously crippling you, and doing a great deal of harm to others. For a large sum of money, a huge pain in the ass, and a fuck-ton of side-effects, your life can be repaired from its naturally crippled state.

The system of catering only to the majority is not the problem. If the majority of animals are dogs, cats can go fuck themselves. Cats are obviously the problem, because they do not fit into the dog system. Why create a system which effectively caters to both cats and dogs, when you can create a system only for dogs? It is pure ludicrousness.

For more information, contact the National Center for BSD Study - located in the heart of Alabama. There, you will find many helpful people, who can explain in full detail how BSD damages us all; especially those who come in contact with bearers of this terrible plague. They will explain how millions of people suffer from BSD, but not enough millions to prove how the system is the problem. They will insist the majority millions get the full benefit of the system because it is impossible to structure a system for all types of people. Lastly, they will never use the 'N-word', because it is politically incorrect and no medical terminology or theory could ever be politically incorrect or of greater offense.

Here are some actual testimonials:

Jimbo Duggins, Mississippi: "I've had a lot of misfortune in my life. I hypothesized how not everything flourishes in the same environment. Then someone directed me to the National Center for BSD Study, where I learned the actual cause of my difficulties - a handicap I was born with called Black Skin Disorder. I immediately felt better, knowing my life's shortcomings were not my fault. Ever since I opted for therapy, my life has turned around for the better."

Jerome Brown, Georgia: "The therapy is horrible, but not as horrible as the disorder. Now that i'm cured, I can get into some country-clubs instead of none."

Would these fine people lie to you?

Like with depression, there is only one cure for BSD - OUR cure. Be sure to call as soon as conceivably possible, so everyone can be free from this horrible affliction.

Why are men 'dogs'? Is it really such a mystery? Are men evil? In truth, the matter is simple - survival.

Look closely at the human reproductive system:

Women;

1. Can only reproduce once every 9 months, if even.
2. Can only have one child at a time, except on rare occasions.
3. Can only reproduce for around 30 years (ages 10-40).

Men;

1. Can almost constantly impregnate women.
2. Are mostly limited by the amount of women they can impregnate.
3. Can reproduce from puberty until the day they die.

In nature, roughly 80% of infants died. As you all know, impregnation does not occur every time sex occurs. This means, men had to have as much sex with as many women as possible, for the survival of the species.

In nature, the human life-span was only 40 years. The male sexual peak is 18. The female peak is 30. This is obviously because female's cannot reproduce after around 40 and male's needed to reproduce throughout their entire lives, starting as quickly as reasonable.

Is it really a mystery why, as they age, women get 'uglier' and men get 'better-looking'? Women get uglier when they can no longer reproduce, so that men will look to the women who can reproduce. The men get better-looking so the women who can reproduce will be more willing to reproduce with older men (the one's who will sooner be dead and can no longer contribute reproductively).

It is perfectly clear what is actually going on. Some men are primitive idiots (no offense), who are controlled by their reproductive systems (which are now obsolete, unnecessary and quite possibly detrimental). The solution - men should stop being slaves to their primitive instincts. These days, over-population is the concern rather than the reason our system functions the way it does - under-population. We don't even need sex anymore for reproduction. Through artificial insemination, we could never have sex and still survive.

Maybe it is time to evolve? Enjoy exploiting your reproductive system, but do it with only one person - the person you have children with. As creatures of intellect, knowledge can aid our future by helping replace our outdated primitive impulses.

Instead of paying an uncaring, faceless monster for hosting, why not pay the community? Couldn't members of the community host the site by utilizing their upload bandwidth? Couldn't you encourage members by paying appropriate amounts of advertising money? Like bittorent for a website?

The two main problems with internet gaming are???

Ping and cheating.

Let's say, there was a studio in each major city, where pro's played their official matches. Almost everyone lives near a major city, or could move close enough. Would this setup resolve the concerns? The studio could have the best internet connections possible, and since all the players are there in person, there would be 0 normal cheating concerns.

If satellites were in the middle of cities instead of outer-space, would they be good enough for gaming?

How many of you have what is called a.d.h.d.? If you have this, you have probably developed the ability to transfer the power from all of your brain-plants into a single brain-plant. The 'train your brain' games were on the right track, but they got it a little wrong. When you look at the pictures of brain activity, what you're actually seeing is merely what 'brain-plant' is currently being used. A television watching brain-plant has no reason to grow past a certain point, therefore when you see the small amount of brain-usage, you might think it indicates low brain-power (it actually only shows how much brain-power is required to watch television).

The technology the good brain doctor developed to observe brain-plants could be an invaluable asset to video game players. A quake player with 'a.d.h.d.' can be so good because upon building a good quake tree, he or she can transfer all brain power into the quake tree. The quake tree might include a great deal of math, science and philosophy; although it is possible you can only utilize these particular aspects of the quake-tree while using the quake-tree. If a game is designed to grow the right set of brain-plants, playing the game could be pleasure and a great way to grow certain plants or combinations of plants.

For a long time now... about... let's see... how long has it been... hmm... let me think... few seconds more... nevermind. I do it because... let me think... because........ because...... because I love you. Some people would say speaking off-topic in a forum thread is poor forum etiquette. We all know poor forum etiquette is the same as killing six million innocent Jews (a.k.a. people). But maybe there are times when it's good to kill six million innocent Jews... I mean... speak off-topic. But, let's move on to the actual topic.

The topic is.... ... .. . .. video games. And how people in the pro-gaming community always try to change video games into something else. They start by changing the name to esports. Then they try to mimic 'sports' in seemingly every way possible. They do things like put glowing lights on computer desks to try to mask the fact they're computer desks. I'm here to say, enough is enough. Let video games be themselves. Would you want to be a fake bastard only a superficial moron wouldn't see through?

I mean, instead of putting glowing lights on computer desks, just don't show the computer desks at all. Instead of showing the players, don't show them. Mystery and imagination is more interesting than people's faces and their mannerisms. And certainly more interesting than computer desks, no matter how many glowing lights they have or how the lights are positioned. And instead of arranging all these incredibly silly lan tournaments, as they are so-like things other than video games, use video game things like the internet.

With video games more than any other game or sport thing, the show is in the game. The game is in the game. Try spending less time with glowing lights and more time with the game.

Gametype: Duel
Map: cpm1a - Wicked
Mod: Challenge ProMode Arena
Viewpoint: Jonesy
Version info: CPM 1.38
How to play back Q3 demos


This is a demo of me against a lame cpm bot (75.keel). I'm uploading it to make it easy for people to check out thirdperson perspectives. I suggest watching this demo using model bones, cg_thirdperson 1, and cg_thirdpersonrange 75. Even though it's a lame bot demo, you can see the potential the third person perspective has in cpm.

I don't know what the weird, cold feeling is in cpm, but if they manage to 'fix' it, this game will easily eclipse vq3. Shame more players don't give it a chance.