Elections - come on people! Can we get excited yet???

News for discussion
marky
Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Elections - come on people! Can we get excited yet???

Post by marky » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:07 am

Well, can we?

Huh, huh huh? Mommy are the Dems going to sweep this? Eh? Are we ready to rumble?

Let's play a game called HUMBLE THE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though it's my bedtime. No lie. Gotta go.

But can we get excited yet? Please?

It's worth mentioning the Moon is in Gemini for this election, and Gemini means change if it means anything.

marky
Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

RUMMY IS OUT!!!!

Post by marky » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:28 pm

DONALD RUMSFELD HAS STEPPED DOWN!

User avatar
mccutcheon
New York Scribbler
Posts: 4996
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

So long good bye!

Post by mccutcheon » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:33 pm

I'm excited! I was in Woodstock hangin' with the Dylan vibe.

megapulse
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US
Contact:

Post by megapulse » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:41 pm

yes, Virginia!

did you all see that the first socialist, the guy from vermont has been elected to senate

and the first muslim

first woman as the speaker of the house

i don't give a crap what nader says about this not being a progressive election -- this was a great election!

(however virginia is not for lovers, it's really really not, we're going to have to change our motto -- virginia is for same sex marriages only, all you other law abiding tax payers need to move the fuck out, our poor rural kids don't need your gay tax revenues)

marky
Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Post by marky » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:53 am

I fucking love you guys. I tried to post about this on another board and I totally got chewed out for saying "fucking" ONCE (oh my god profanity!) and bringing up politics (oh the horror). What a load of asswipe. Some people wouldn't know the 1st amendment if it smacked them in the eye. I was censored. And I didn't even say that much really. Just two short paragraphs, that's all I said. And it was just too much, apparently.

megapulse
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US
Contact:

Post by megapulse » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:35 pm

mark, that is so close to my heart.

i purposely got myself banned off a site. i guess i mean i requested to be permanently removed from their member list b/c they censored people. this was back when i made a
"i'm really proud of this website" comment. that was why. i think your right to say what you want is your right. it's my right to ignore you.

what pissed me off most was this was a pearl jam website. i went on a rant for days about eddie quoting the clash, "you have the right to free speech . . . as long as you're dumb enough to try it, try it." the site equipped its members with an ignore feature. you could go in and set the thing to ignore certain posters -- wtf. there was absolutely no need to censor. yet people argued for censorship -- they defended censorship! idiots, ready to take away something in order to feel powerful and in control. everywhere even in cyberspace. except here (some of the very same people were all about bill hicks, i'm like no you're not, you're a fucking hypocrite who doesn't even understand bill hicks!)

i fucking love you guys too!

marky
Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Post by marky » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:33 pm

good to hear it Sarah!

Here's a quote I found on some AFP story on Yahoo news about the neocons being "in crisis":
Even well-known proponents are beginning to back away from the neocon label, most notably Francis Fukuyama in his recently published book "America at the Crossroads, Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy."

"I have concluded," he writes, "that neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something that I can no longer support.

"Neoconservatism has now become irreversibly identified with the policies of the administration of George W. Bush in his first term and any effort to reclaim the label at this point is likely to be futile."
here's the rest of the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usvoteneocon

User avatar
mccutcheon
New York Scribbler
Posts: 4996
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by mccutcheon » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:33 am

Some people would say if it wasn't for Marky and Sarah we would still have people come to this BB of BB. But we don't censor.

Fuck 'em. I never wanted to be popular.

marky
Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Post by marky » Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:43 am

McC, I got your phone message, love you too. No need to clarify anything. But you know, I'm of the opinion that if it weren't for the likes of me and Sarah then no one would post on this board period. I'm serious, it just seems like it would all be dead silence.

Although I was quite amused recently when I searched "Nick Drake Peel Session" on Google and found my own drunken post on Paxacidus as the first result that came up. Embarassing? Sortof. Baffling more like. Surely there must be people out there reading our crap. But yet you could hear a pin drop around here. Sloth should have the stats - aren't there people out there Sloth? I mean, in a way I wouldn't care if there weren't, frankly, but I don't know it's totally weird. We FEEL like we're in a vacuum, but clearly we're not. I don't get it.
Are we supposed to feel glad we get spam posts? Etc...

marky
Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Post by marky » Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:52 am

Anyway I do think there is a clear correlation between what you said McC and what Sloth was saying on the thread about Myspace. What we have here is a few folks who are actually friends, instead of 500 pretend friends who really don't know each other at all, a big popularity pretense.

I fucking hate pretense. Did I mention that? Do you know how much I dearly hate pretense? Say what you mean, mean what you say. That last sentence is the name of the best Durutti Column record ever, but it still has a lot of truth in it by itself, that saying. Say what you mean, mean what you say. Mind you, in the song it isn't a command as much as a sad realization that the person doesn't mean what they say/say what they mean. Anyway, just be real with people, that's all that's required. I don't know why that's so hard for some people. I don't like people telling me things they don't actually mean just because they think it will entertain me or whatever. I'm going through this with someone right now. The same one who censored me in fact. It just makes me sick. I don't understand it. Telling lies to please people. What's the point? You'll get so much more traction out of being yourself, being honest, being real. Hell, even yourself McC, once you told me you had Who records or something when you didn't have them. So what? You're a beautiful person anyway. Just be real with me. That's all I want out of anyone. No smoke and mirrors.

megapulse
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US
Contact:

Post by megapulse » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:31 pm

some people would be wrong. Although I understood why the person who I saw post that said it, I think that person who posted that was wrong.

And I think that for the same reason that I said what I said about censorship being completely unnecessary -- behaviorist psychology

how to phase out a behavior -- you give the person performing it no stimulation while he or she is doing it, no reinforcement, neither positive nor negative, or as your mama might have wisely said, just ignore it.

To get someone to continue doing something you provide them reinforcement -- in other words in this context, you pay attention to their posts.

People came to this website to talk to you and sloth -- it is your philosophy and writing that is all over the place. Not mine and not Mark's, sure we post a lot here on the bb -- that is because no one else has in a long while, except for pixie -- you ignored them -- you've even come right out and said something to the extent of, I don't read shit posted by people I don't know.

and if that is the truth, fine, thanks for being honest, but it is also largely the reason that people don't post here that don't know you, not the number of posts made by mark and sarah.

if you will read about bf skinner's “extinctionâ€￾ you might gain some insight into what happens when you ignore someone's posts -- a lot of people who study the behavior of people have found skinner to be quite brilliant -- a lot of people such as parents who've lived with kids for years, are like no shit, I could have told you without the years you spent on a degree:

Extinction is the lack of any consequence following a response. When a response is inconsequential, producing neither favorable nor unfavorable consequences, it will occur with less frequency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

anyway, I agree with mark censorship is stupid. Thanks for the response and the muffin top link. I was like Oh My GOD! That is what it is.

User avatar
TragicPixie
Mile High Club
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by TragicPixie » Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:13 am

aww ... I don't get to frighten people away?

I know - I didn't have the internet and was busy. Speaking of busy there is supposed to an anarchist party tonight - and I don't have a set ready yet. Oh well...
Instead I thought I'd deocrate my apartment kinda ... but I dropped a post card between the wall and the stove and can't get it out. Ooops...

megapulse
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US
Contact:

Post by megapulse » Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:48 am

pixie, i pretended for a day that you frightened me away -- are you happy now, goddamnit! there was not a single post today! i'm kidding and laughing at the absurdity or thinking, hmmm, people posting will make other people not post -- the logic there is lost on me.

so was my logic in posting that a muslim was elected to senate, whoops! the guy's name is ellison and he's now in the house

i told my sister and brother in law, they were very ho-hum about it.

pixie speaking of anarchy, i'm totally changing the subject, are you a vegan or vegatarian? i was just wondering because i recently read that a harvard study has found that red meat consumed by women in their 20's and 30's has been linked to breast cancer -- it seems if you don't eat your meat you can't have any breast cancer, how can you have any breast cancer if you don't eat your meat?

anywho, i'm not one to judge b/c i am a long time smoker, but just thinking about you; i mean if you're not a big fan of red meat, you might just want to not eat it all . . . i can definitely do without it.

did you have fun at your anarchist party?

User avatar
TragicPixie
Mile High Club
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by TragicPixie » Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:06 am

I did - and no body seemed to mind that after doing a set of gabber I played lots of punk and rage against the machine (last weekend was overall a very expensive weekend .... I went on an oh-my-god-someone-is-selling-THIS-record spree at a local record store's secondhand record sale...)

I am a vegetarian - sometimes vegan depending on finances and general laziness. (but just for those of us who aren't opposed to fast food in general the veggie burgers from are burger king aren't half bad...) If I remember right, it's the estrogen in red meat that is linked to breast cancer. We've know that for years - but it hasn't been brought to public knowledge for a lot of political reasons: but the reasoing is such:
estrogen causes breast tissue to grow: cancer is an unchecked growth of cells in any given tissue - really this is a tumour; a cancerous tumor is one that has started tossing cells into the bloodstream to go off elseplaces and start it's own little tumor party.
Okay - so *estrogen* can cause breast tissue to develop (ie new cells) when really - a woman's actual breast tissue in general shouldn't ever really increase or decrease after puberty - so it's not the body doing this in it's own magical, good way (when breasts enlarge that's more or less the fat cells or mammorary glands becoming enlarged... not the breast tissue). So - when renegade breast tissue develops for whatever reason (genetics, too much estrogen - so environment then, etc.) it generally makes a lump since this isn't the body regulating anything that's the tumour.
Other sources of excess estrogen and more reason this isn't widespread: another leading cause of breast cancer has been hormone replacement therapy. We used to, but don't usually anymore, given women estrogen pills to take for the rest of their life after menopause - so essentially we stopped many of the other effects of menopause aside from the fact that the woman will no longer mensturate. Menopause protects women from breast cancer (especially doing so without estrogen and HRC) because there is less estrogen in the body and less chances that some renegade breast cell will grab it and decide it needs to make more cells. The same goes for the new birth control pills that use low hormones or things like dsp (which is Yasmin I believe) and pregnancy as well as lactation. - If you are breast feeding your body makes a lot of other homeones and estrogen levels will remain low.

So - you could eat red meat and be perfectly healthy in the sense of breast cancer as long as you could find organic, non-hormone treated meat - which is very difficult to do outside of places like MO I guess where every other farm has a herd of cattle and all you really need to do is make friends with a farmer and agree to buy a whole damn cow and get it slaughtered yourself. Milk and dairy products also used to be hugely laced with estrogen - I'm not sure they still are. This has been linked to the excelerated development of young girls - so I think in the mid 90s hormone levels in milk were lowered. Too bad not in time for me! It's really unknown what the huge levels of hormones at young ages will do to those kids who grew up with them but I think kids my age (20-21ish) were the cut off and it began around 1983 ... so yeah this affected anyone who went through puberty and pre-puberty with the stuff and I remember it was always weird how less developed kids in the class under mine in highschool always was... after doing some research, now I think I can figure out why!

megapulse
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US
Contact:

Post by megapulse » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:33 pm

right, i wonder though why the harvard study just targeted red meat. i mean i swear, old folks are so damn right on sometimes if you listen to them. about ten to fifteen years ago my grandmother, not the one with breast cancer, said "what the hell is wrong with those chickens. chickens don't get that big. i ain't eatin that." and she was right they were pumped full of the hormones you're talking about.

about the pill and other cancers, do be careful. i read over the summer that the pill increases the likelihood of cancers especially in women who have hpv -- which is a fucking lot of them.

rage! i will never forget the first time i saw them. the hubby and i were at this dirty concert and i think wu tang was playing, we'd just finished watching soundgarden who were so fucking rude, i hate chris cornell even though he still is amazingly hot, but rage, i had never even heard of them, and everybody was running around like, omg did you hear rage is up! they're here!! and they weren't supposed to be there. it was weird, but good. sometimes i miss those times. i miss rage. a lot of people have compared the dead presidents to them and i can see why.

i'd have loved to have been at your party.

Locked