Tryptonique

Hello, everyone. You might have seen me posting around these boards by now...so I figured an introduction was in order. Name: Evan School : University of Idaho Majors: Poly Sci, International Studies, Spanish Level = Sophomore and a half (after 2 semesters in college plus one semester of credit thanks to high school AP classes) Hobbies: going to rock concerts, hackey sack, writing (on occasion), a few personal goals: -To become proficient at Brazillian Ju-Jitsu and another martial art (One that is not ground based but rather a "stand up" style). -To become a good dancer (I'm taking a ballroom dancing class next semester). -To make a whole lot of money by getting in to the music industry as an attorney/manager That is it for now. -Please leave comments, questions, or whatever in this tread so I can have fun responding pics:

First...lets define what a Fetish IS. from www.refdesk.com I believe that to be in a healthy and productive sexual relationship, you must be an introspective person. A lot of people have desires that they are afraid or unwilling to analyze...which is part of the reason they are "fetishes" instead of an expression of will. People are controlled by the psychological need instead of controlling or being able to channel that need. I think that if you really take pleasure from rough sex, that you need to analyze and know WHY you like that form of sexual pleasure to the exclusion of everything else. If you have rational reasons for what you are doing and understand WHAT you are doing, why you are doing it, the repercussions (if any), and don't debase yourself to do it....then I don't see what the problem could be. Sex is clear manifestation of a person's sense of life. Compare the scenes of Dominique/Roark, Leo/Kira, and Dagny/anyone then compare it to the scene with James Taggart and Lilian Rearden. If busting out the knives and cutting yourself/other people turns you on...that says a lot about who you are and what you respond to (pain, violence, inflicting harm on others, etc). If you like to tie your partners arms to the bed post with a silk scarf and get "naughty" with them while they are helpless....that might seem "unconventional" to the more puritanical, but that can also be analyzed and categorized on an objective level. Who is doing the categorization, though...and what would be the purpose of such categorization on a societal level? I think sex is a very very very private and personal act. I'm not talking (nor would I be) about my own sexual experiences and I don't expect others to spill the beans (nor would I want them to do so). Sex has to be evaluated on a personal level and a partner-partner level and that is the bottom line. Sex should be kept IN the bedroom and not put forth for public judgment. If you choose to waive this right (such as porn stars) then you open yourself up to public criticism. I guess I find this to be a moot point. I found this to be perfectly explained in the "Happiness" chapter of OPAR as well as in Nathaniel Branden's essay in The Virtue of Selfishness. As long as you have a basic guide, the intricacies of specific fetishes (like bukake, foot fetishes) don't really need to be delved in to unless you are considering them and are worried about the ramifications. If you can't figure out the pros and cons of a sex act, you probably shouldn't be doing it anyways. As I said earlier and will re-emphasize:Sex has to be evaluated on a personal level and a partner-partner level and that is the bottom line.

check your PMs, GC:)

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/download.html Is that the program you mentioned?

So...with all that said....what do you think of the naked Iraqi prisoner photos and the revelation that there is probably a WHOLE lot worse on the way?

Mind giving a link to the article you are questioning?

My girl is an Alias fan and it is the only T.V show she watches AT ALL. She has really enjoyed it though and watches it every week. Does it live up to the hype? What do you guys think about this television show?

Bush and the religious right (and how it affects his presidency/stance on issues) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

The Geneva Convention Summary : Basic rules of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts(1) 1. Persons hors de combat and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and their moral and physical integrity. They shall in all circumstances be protected and treated humanely without any adverse distinction. 2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat. 3. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports and equipment. The emblem of the red cross or the red crescent is the sign of such protection and must be respected. 4. Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives,dignity, personal rights and convictions. They shall be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief. 5. Everyone shall be entitled to benefit from fundamental judicial guarantees. No one shall be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment. 6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering. 7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives Now...my question has to do with a couple of things. 1) What do you think of the Geneva convention? 2) What is the Objectivist view on international politics? Should there be a global monopoly on the use of force (world government/global executive) or should the international system be anarchaic in nature? Galt's Gulch had a judge....but he was never used as a judge because the rational society governed themselves. Can we leave the irrational bodies to themselves in a society without any codified rules? If we need rules....don't we need something more than the "trust" and honesty of states that might be irrational? Should we have some sort of international redress if a country violates a contract (treaty)? Should we have a standardized enforcement mechanism in the world system?

My review of the movie: Frankly, I thought the movie was sort of bland. It was a window into sadism and brutality of a bunch of ignorant 2000 year old civilizations. The cinematography was awesome and I LOVED the flashbacks. The time when Mary is trying to get up the strength to go help Jesus and has the flashback to when he fell down as a child was seriously seriously moving. Maybe I'm the only one that was emotionally touched by that moment, but I thought that demonstration of a mother's love for her son was very timeless. Frankly, Satan was the most interesting character in the movie. I wish Mel had done a movie on the biblical story of Satan and all the big bad stuff that Satan has done. That would have been entertainment. Satan doesn't really have much gender in the movie and frankly...I think he/she looks like Billy Corgan a bit. Her voice has some amazing affects and the black hood/slightly modified voice, and the way she moves in that cloak is simply one of the coolest things in that whole movie. Aside from that, I was really disappointed. This movie is a bloodfest and past that, it doesn't do much. You are left pretty hardpressed to say that The Passion had much going for it past the usual Christian bromides of "love thy neighbor."

I actually haven't had the money or time to buy the album and listen to it all. My dad once had The Wall hanging around the house and I picked up some songs like "Hey you" for instance. I have seen the movie, though because I worked at Hollywood video for a summer. Free rentals, he he The movie is really interesting.....really really dark art...but art nonetheless.

I agree. Frisco didn't BETRAY his values...he had full integrity. The thing is though....he had to be taught. He had to be approached and taught. Who would Dagny fall in love with and be willing to submit to? An equal (like Frisco who had to be shown the right way to embody values) or the dominant powerhouse of a teacher like Jon Galt? If you remember, Galt approached Frisco about shrugging. Dagny was the reason why it was so crazily hard for him to leave and shrug. He asks her if she would be willing to give up her railroad and she responds angrily "what would you expect me to say if you asked me if I wanted to committ suicide?" (paraphrased). She wasn't ready....and Frisco was barely ready. She fell in love with the BEST man she could fall in love with...and that was Galt. A man without pain (Frisco), fear (rearden) or guilt. The essence of Rand's heroes. She couldn't have anything LESS than Galt.

It is possible to love more than one person because at the root...they are all the same when it comes to the values they embody. That is why it isn't a betrayal for Dagny to love Frisco, Rearden, and Galt. The way Dagny determined is by who BEST embodied those values. Galt is the one who best embodied their values because he understood the only correct way to fully embrace those values.....by not sanctioning the looter and by shrugging them off to create a world where values could reach their full potential. I think the Dagny/Galt model could best be applied to your own life. As for Leo/Kira/Andrei.... Kira loves Leo which is why she sleeps with Andrei to get money for his little trip to the Crimea. She doesn't fully love Andrei in the same way because he embodies a contradiction....individualism and a sense of life mixed with Communist party servitude. As for Dominique, Roark, and Wynand....same thing. Wynand sacrifices his own values for profit and Roark profits from his values. Who is the better man? Who does Dominique really stand by and love throughout the novel? These are all clear cut where one man wins out over the rest. I agree 100% with Capitalism Forever's point about only one person being able to fully win over your heart at a time.

I took the test on the website and got 475 WPM with 91% comprehension. According to the site: 400 wpm, auditory reader. FReader provides several speed reading modes to pace your reading beyond this sound barrier of 400 wpm. I definitely agree with Erandor on this one. The content of the document is what will adjust your speed. I could whip through the test pretty easily because the questions were basic in nature as was the content of the material that was provided in the sample. If they would have used something more intense...it would have been a LOT tougher.

I disagree. Look at what the music is actually against or "anti." 1) Have a Cigar Is that song anti corporate? You gotta get an album out, You owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count. You owe it to the people? Sounds like Mouch or James Taggart. THAT is what Pink Floyd is against. He is indicating by the music manager's insincerity (Well I've always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely. The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's Pink?) and by his "produce for society" words that the music manager is riding the gravy train or profiting from the band's talent without actually putting in anything part. Sort of like the scenes in Atlas where the looters demand a product without understanding how it is made or what is necessary to MAKE it. I don't think Pink Floyd is against music as a product. They are against music production from those who don't know how to produce. Why would this suprise you or why would you be against that? I manage a band and I am friends a Fresno band called Camera. Their demo was produced by Adema's front man Mark Chavez who was on the Arista label until the CEO Antonio L.A Reid got fired from Arista. Arista did squat for promotion and did squat for backing an album (which is why a lot of artists get dropped). They also are signing crap bands...and even with bands that are sucessful...they haven't been able to prevent themselves from going millions of dollars into the hole. Labels can really screw over artists BIG time and fail to uphold their end of the deal. I think it is understandable (as someone involved directly in the business) to be against those who undermine your productive attempts and leech of from you instead of promoting a healthy artist-label symbiot. 2) Welcome to the machine This song comes before "Have a cigar" which I think is for a reason. I think this song is about how weak people (such as those who are typical in their anti-intellectualism and rebelliousness) can be easily controlled into what dreams/aspirations they have. Dreams of "the steak bar" without the intellectual merit, self discipline, or character to back them up. In short...a typical Gen X mentality. This leads right in to the process of exploitation. Maybe some people lend themselves to exploitation? Maybe they want to be exploited? I think the amount of willing hosts gives the parasites a sense of self legitamacy. In that capacity...they think they can get away with exploiting bands with talent...like Pink Floyd (which is where the anti-music business element comes in on "have a cigar). 3) Wish you were here If you disect this song: I think this is a question for people....can you tell that A is A and not B? If you CAN tell objective value...or objective identity... Did they get you to compromise? A walk on part in the war = Howard Roark/ Henry Cameron A lead role in a cage = Peter Keating This gives a sense of futility that comes by playing by the system's rules. Kind of like Dagny/Rearden playing by the rules of the looters. What is really gained from dealing on their terms? There is always a feeling of, "there is something that we are missing." Who do they wish for? Jon Galt. I just don't think that Pink Floyd identifies this...but I kind of think that is what is intended. Most important to this picture: 4) Shine on you crazy diamond and part 2 This song preludes the album and seems to encourage somone with inner worth (diamonds) to shine (or reach full self actualization). Maybe chronologically speaking....this is addressed to a child or Pink Floyd as a child? This child is a prisoner (as declared at the end of the song). After all of the other trials, turmoils, etc.... Part two seems to be addressing an adult...someone who is not between being a child and a star. However...the adult still needs guidance in comparison to the enlightened and is encouraged to shine...despite the obstacles that had previously been in the way. I think of Dagny Taggart....a winner in the sense that she had made herself...a loser in the fact that she played by the system's rules instead of shrugging (she lost productivity to the looters). A miner (a producer like Rearden) for truth (objective value) and delusion (at the same time...her production was feeding the anti-lifers/exploiters who couldn't recognize objective value, so their code was opposite of hers...hence the "delusion" which might seem to be a contradiction. So what does it mean to shine? What is Pink getting at when he exclaims at the end of the album, "Come on and shine?" I think it means...reach your full potential and SHRUG. That could just be the way I read this album....maybe that is selective interpretation. I would like some discussion on this though.

ahhh! I can't believe I forgot "comfortably numb." Definitely a great song. I also love most of the stuff on "Wish you Were here." That was a cool album.

I saw the uncut full color Region two (Japanese) release of Kill Bill. It swaps the black and white crazy 88 scene with a full color version. The anime sequence is also longer and there are different camera angles. Anyone else see the movie as it was originally intended? I just got back from the theaters after watching KB2 and it just didn't have the same impact as the first one. I loved how in the first one the technical brilliance of Oren, Gogo, etc were demonstrated. The fighting wasn't impressive at all in the second one.

I like some of the instrumental pink floyd. a couple of good floyd songs: "High hopes" "signs of life" "Wish you were here" "Hey you"

Probably because industrialists of old were often aided by corrupt government entities like Tammany Hall (for one).

Steve Vai, Yngwie Malmsteen, Clapton, Hendrix, and Frank Zappa should start you off just fine:)

I always used to watch the old cartoon on Fox. I remember they had it on at 10:30 every Saturday morning. Those were the days. I never did check out the comics....as I never was really into them either. I read "Batman the Dark Knight returns" by Frank Miller and enjoyed the style of comic presentation. I will have to check out X-men comics someday. What did you think of the X-men movies? I thought the opening scene of X-2 with Nightcrawler kicking the ultimate crap out of the White House was just really really cool. I was NOT expecting that as a movie intro and I was like...whoosh.

Methinks someone likes (or has liked) X-men

yup. The avatar pic doesn't look that hot:) For how I actually look:

My best friend has the mushroom hat and a matching skirt. I thought it would be funny to wear it as a gag and she snapped a photo . Henceforth I am the ruler of the Mushroom Kingdom.