
 |
I Hate Winnipeg...er...Spring
Metal Mike
4/24/2004
10:43 PM
|
I found myself in the library today. My plan was to read for a class for two hours. I knew I'd be lucky if I actually read for more than half an hour. Between not reading and browsing the Internet, I took a casual glance out of the window next to me. The view was of the school's main quad. Much to my dismay, there were...people. People outside. People standing around. People talking. People thinking that they can skate (they can't). Even the douchebag with the unicycle. Yes. A unicycle. Pothead with stupid shoes. On a unicycle. And then there's hackysack circles. Right in the middle of the walkway.
And that. That is only on campus. Since I'm probably the only one who reads this and knows what Rochester actually looks like, I'll try and put things into perspective. The winters here and long and furious. There is lots of snow and, because of this, lots of salt and snow plows. Salt builds up and stains most everything. Plows push snow to anywhere but the roads. So long as there is snow on the ground, it looks beautiful. Now, get rid of this snow, gradually, over three days worth of sun. What is left is a muddy, tore up, and generally dead area. Sunshine and blooming leaves don't mesh well with mud and dead grass. It just looks wrong. There needs to be snow. Or rain. Or fog. Or sleet. Some kind of weather condition needs to be there. Sun just doesn't work.
Nothing would make me happier than if six feet of snow were to fall from the skies overnight.
 |
I Hate Winnipeg...er...Spring
Ugly Joe
3/29/2004
11:19 PM
|
I found myself in the library today. My plan was to read for a class for two hours. I knew I'd be lucky if I actually read for more than half an hour. Between not reading and browsing the Internet, I took a casual glance out of the window next to me. The view was of the school's main quad. Much to my dismay, there were...people. People outside. People standing around. People talking. People thinking that they can skate (they can't). Even the douchebag with the unicycle. Yes. A unicycle. Pothead with stupid shoes. On a unicycle. And then there's hackysack circles. Right in the middle of the walkway.
And that. That is only on campus. Since I'm probably the only one who reads this and knows what Rochester actually looks like, I'll try and put things into perspective. The winters here and long and furious. There is lots of snow and, because of this, lots of salt and snow plows. Salt builds up and stains most everything. Plows push snow to anywhere but the roads. So long as there is snow on the ground, it looks beautiful. Now, get rid of this snow, gradually, over three days worth of sun. What is left is a muddy, tore up, and generally dead area. Sunshine and blooming leaves don't mesh well with mud and dead grass. It just looks wrong. There needs to be snow. Or rain. Or fog. Or sleet. Some kind of weather condition needs to be there. Sun just doesn't work.
Nothing would make me happier than if six feet of snow were to fall from the skies overnight.
 |
Break it down now!
Metal Mike
3/29/2004
2:29 PM
|
Can't we please resurrect this place? It was so much fun once, a long time ago.
In the spirit of posting for the sake of posting, here are some of the things that resulted from a Google ©™¾® Image Search for "nonsense." GO!
And so on and so forth...
P.S.
WHERE ARE THE GODDAMNED WEAPONS OF MASS FUCKING DESTRUCTION?! Yeah, thats right FCC, I said fuck, blasphemed, and chastised the government of our blessed country all in one sentence. Burn!!
 |
Thomas Jefferson ROX \m/
Metal Mike
3/22/2004
10:32 AM
|
...The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
 |
Interview with Shmike
Prozack
3/17/2004
12:35 AM
|
Well, my internet is back. I thank Ugly Joe. Now that I am back, Im still not making any promises of constant and reliable updates. There are times where I think that posting is futile, and feel that I should just give it up. But there is still fun to be had; useless postings veiled with the belief of significance. But hell, at least Im not throwing bombs into government buildings.
Okay, heres something new kids. I hope you people hate interviews, because I have one for you. And this might become a typical thing. The test-run will be with the lovable, irresistible, Puerto Rican, chocolate-filled Shmike (only three of those adjectives are true).
Prozack: state your name
S: Shmike
P: name three of the bands youve been listening to lately
S: Joy Division, the Clash, and Beck
P: I too enjoy clash.
S: London CallingEis a masterpiece, it seems
P: do you have favorite kind of weather?
S: before rain in the summer
P: if you could watch two people fight, who you would you choose?
S: shit...the only thing that comes to mind is Buddha and Gandhi, because theyre so damn passive
P: who would you root for?
S: Buddha, all the way
P: last cd you listened to?
S: beck - sea change
P: last cd you bought?
S: Modest Mouse - building something out of nothing; a long time ago
P: last movie you watched, beginning to end?
S: labyrinth
P: would you recommend it?
S: not to anyone allergic to cheesy 80's Bowie rock, or muppets
P: what do you think of the Lost Desk Department?
S: an exercise in apathy
P: what was the last interesting thing you read?
S: an essay by Adlous Huxley about metaphysical poetry
P: last good advice you were given?
S: can't remember. it might've been about not stepping in poo, or not pooping where people step. I really don't know.
P: last time you broke the law?
S: Saturday night
P: can you say what you were doing?
S: by driving on the wrong side of the road, and sincerely thinking nothing of it. I was under the impression I was on a two-lane road. .... I was also slightly drunk.
P: what do you think when I say the word "emo"?
S: fluffy white clouds
P: seriously, has it become a joke?
S: maybe it always was
P: do you have a favorite guitar chord?
S: x5465x
S: or any variant up or down the fretboard
P: if you could see one band in concert that is no longer together, who would it be?
S: smashing pumpkins, you fool
P: what would you hope the encore to be?
S: tonight tonight, you dolt
P: why are you being so mean to me?
S: because i secretly just want to hold your hand
P: if you were given five minutes of free television, what would you do with it?
S: show porn, or read poetry, or some wonderful combination of the two
P: you could have porn stars reading poetry and getting fucked in the butt
S: while getting pounded by peter north, i like the sound of that
P: peter north is my favorite male porn star, did you know that?
S: oh i know, all too well
P: heh heh
S: Im contemplating putting a picture of his cock on a shirt for you
P: you were there for the "having a favorite male pornstar doesnt make me gay" argument, correct?
S: i might've been
S: when and where did it take place?
P: Dennys, where all great debates take place
S: if i was i don't remember it
S: but i remember you saying something like that to me before
P: well, maybe Ill post that later...anyway
P: what can you remember of Shmike circa 2000?
S: what grade was that? 10th?
P: 10 then into 11
S: wait nevermind. Shmike 2000 was into punk, in a very fashionable sort of way
P: do you think we'd get along with Shmike 2000 or would he annoy us and then we'd take his wallet?
S: the latter, almost definitely
P: finish this lyric:
This morning was a joke
When I awoke in bed.
I decided to lay and smoke,
____________________
S: and call my lady for some head
P: last time you were inspired?
S: Friday
P: what do you hope to have a year from now?
S: a fucking job
P: do you wish to quote anyone?
S: "meh" -Ugly Joe or "feh" -Mel Brooks
P: anything you would like to say? ask? insult?
S: not really
 |
Sixes
Ugly Joe
3/7/2004
12:02 AM
|
So I drove back from Jersey this morning. Being on the same strip of highway for more than an hour is both boring and kinda painfull. Sitting still the whole time is not easy for me. I saw some guy on the side of the highway staring at his truck's exposed engine. I was feeling sick of sitting there driving, so I decided to pull over to see if I could give this guy a hand with something.
The guy was rather suprised that anyone bothered to stop and help him. By the time he started talking, I was regretting doing this. He looked rather pissed. I asked what was wrong and he snapped back with an obvious "my truck isn't running". I tried to lightly laugh that off and asked if he knew what was wrong specifically with the truck. At this point he turned to the engine and started talking about what he thought the problem was. This was mostly jibberish to me. He asked my opinion on it. Knowing next to nothing about engines, I told him one of the things he already said and sort of mumbled off. He looked slightly grateful, but pissed nonetheless. I asked if he wanted to use my cellphone. He didn't. I got back in my truck and drove off.
A few hours of driving later, I got bored again and spotted another vehicle on the side of the road. This was a family of three (mom, dad, son). They were much more talkative. I asked if there was anything I could do to help, but they had already called for help. They still seemed happy to have someone to talk to, though, so I stayed for a while and let them ramble on a bit. Their son occasionally looked up from their GBA and gave me an odd look. I eventually got bored of listening to them and said I had a to go. Got back in my truck and drove some more.
What did I learn from this? Helping people with car problems is not my best way of helping people. Also, talking to people is more boring than driving for long hours at a time. Hrm...I guess that's a moral.
By the way, none of that actually happened.
 |
Shakespeare Spelled His Name 23 Different Ways
Prozack
2/19/2004
4:41 PM
|
To post, or not to post: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous postings,
Or to take arms against an internet of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To smoke: to shit;
No more!; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural blunts
That fresh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be smok'd. To die, to sleep;
To shit: perchance to dream: ay, there's the spray;
For in that sleep of death, that is my ass, what dicks may come.
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil (of shit),
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes crapping of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of posting,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's commenting,
The pages of despised love, the law's no apply,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his asshole make
With a bare Johnson? who would even dare,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the humping of something after death,
The undiscover'd country of necrophilia from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those shits we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus shitting does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is stressed o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard my currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.--Fuck you now!
The fair Lost Desk Department! Devil, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
 |
The Trolley Problem
Ugly Joe
2/8/2004
11:04 PM
|
In my Philosophy class, my professor sometimes brings up things called 'Thought Experiments'. They're basically odd situations that beg a specific question (that usually doesn't have a correct answer). I was bored earlier, so I checked the Internet for some of them. Among the ones that I could make sense of (there's a lot of them based on Physics...) was the Trolley Problem. It was originally proposed by Philippa Foot. Here it is:
You are the conductor of a runaway trolley. On the track ahead, there are five people tied to the track who can't get up. The trolley cannot be stopped, so it will eventually hit and kill the five unfortunate victims. You are not helpless, however. As conductor, you can switch to a different track. This track, however, also has a person tied to it who will be killed, should you decide to switch tracks. The question here, do you switch tracks?
Seems kinda obvious to me. Still, there are a few questions to be raised. Is it okay to kill the one guy to spare the five? What makes that one so expendable? etc. etc. etc.
Now, there have been other variations to make it harder to answer. This one I like the most:
There is a similar situation as before, i.e., there is a runaway trolly going down a track and the track has five victims tied to it. However, there is not option of switching tracks. The five vicitims are screwed. Now, this time, you are not the conductor. This time, the trolley's track goes under a bridge. You are on that bridge and can see what is going to inevitabely happen. In a desperate attempt to think of a solution, you surmise that the trolley can definately be stopped if something heavy were thrown on the track, something weighing a few hundred pounds. Another onlooker, let's call him the fat man, is also looking downward at the track. You do the math. A simple push and the fat man falls off the bridge and lands on the track before the five victims. The fat man is indeed quite large, so he'd definately stop the trolley. Of course, the fall, combined with the crash, will kill the fat man. The question this time, do you push the fatman?
In essence, this is the same question. Do you allow five to die, or allow one to die? What's different is that you are killing the one person. The fat man is not a victim until you make him a victim. He has the right to live, doesn't he? Well what about the one man from the first situation? Didn't he? But, don't the five as well? etc. etc. etc.
I found that extremely amusing (and not just in a dark comedy kind of way). Made me think a bit, and I like that. Besides, the update wrote itself. So, for furter reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
|