Sorry ladies and gentlemen, I have been a bit distracted the past few days. I know I have neglected all of my
faithful followers (or readers, or individuals, or whatever all of you are!), but it was just necessary. You
see, I have just upgraded from a 300MHz to an 800MHz computer, from a 56k modem to a cable modem. Meaning, I
am no longer suffering from the typical internet users' "Need For Speed" Syndrome. I'm sure you understand my
position, being the understanding persons that I know you all are, so if you don't mind, I'm going to pass on
the request for comments today (since none of you ever comment anyway), and I am going to commence work on the
redesigning of the rest of the web page. I expect this project to take a week, no more. I have a huge paper
due Wednesday, meaning the site will probably not be done by Wednesday. Take care of yourselves till then!
Happy October Eve. :-)
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
I don't know about you guys, but I definitely like the new look (front page) than the
old one (this page, and the rest of the site). I plan to swiftly redesign the rest of my web site now that
I've found a comfortable new look to my page. If anyone has any comments about this,
email me - I'll be glad to read it and I'll most likely respond.
In other news, tomorrow I am supposed to finally get a cable modem. That's right, say goodbye to forty minute
downloads, say hello to something about a hundred times faster! If Cox/@home actually comes through with the
scheduled installation on time tomorrow, I probably won't be able to tell you guys about it, since I am taking
the old computer (with all of my web files, music, etc.) up to my room while the new computer (the scream
machine) gets the super-fast connection. However, we're also planning on hooking up my room with a digital
internet connection... blah blah blah. I hate to bore you with all this, but I'm excited! Cable internet is
light speed in comparison to a 56k modem...
Tuesday, September 26, 2000
This is only a test. I repeat, this is only a test. Now look - I REALLY want some feedback on this. Do you
like this changed look? Do you not like it? Can you think of any suggestions worth suggesting? If so, please
do me the favor of sending me an email with all the details!
And not like the great majority of the visitors of this web site will care, but I have today received my new
computer, which means the old one that I've been on for two years is now COMPLETELY mine! The new one is the
family computer, but shall be mostly mine, since I'm home during the day while people are at school/work.
Anyway, the new computer is an 800MHz AMD T-Bird with a 27 gig hard drive, 52x CD-ROM, 4x4x24 CD-RW, 128 megs
SD-RAM and 32 megs Video RAM. That probably means nothing to a lot of you, but to those of you that know what
it means, I'm sure you can understand my excitement. This is a considerable boost from 300MHz...
Sunday, September 24, 2000
As anyone who's been here before would notice, I've slightly changed the look of the front page. For years I
have been using the nickname "Crashnburn" online, primarily because I thought it was a cool phrase when I
first heard it. It's amazing how well that nick name has turned out to fit my life. Anyway, rather than bore
you with a life story on the front page of my site, I'm planning on adding somewhat of an autobiography
somewhere on the page sooner or later, as well as completely reformatting the entire web page. I'm tired of
the black brick background, aren't you?! This project could take days, even weeks, so if you happen to be a
regular visitor of the site (for whatever reason), hang with me...
Saturday, September 23, 2000
I really don't think any of you care, but an awesome friend of mine by the name of Matt decided to hook me up
with some webspace on his server! You can now find this website at
neotope.com/~crash! It should be faster, more convenient, better,
etc. and so on and so forth than any other spot my site has sat in the last two months... Thanks Matt, and
everyone take a look at Matt's site, neotope.com.
Thursday, September 21, 2000
Those of you who know me best should congratulate me! Once again, I have stood for what I believed, and those
who thought ever-so-slightly different have once again taken offense to it. I think this happens about once a
year, right about this time, with those same people. All it really proves to me, besides their stupidity, is
that I can't count on them as friends. They know who they are, and anyone who really knows me knows who they
are. It's almost like once a year this "Hate John Paul" bandwagon comes rolling by, and everyone jumps on
before it disappears in time for the spring.
That's not to be the case this time. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth crap. It's like they learn to
love me again, only to build up trust, and then jump at any excuse to hate me again. I never know when they're
going to strike, I only know that not only do I have to be careful of my enemies, but I have to be careful of
my friends as well. I know what the problem is, and almost everyone would assure me that it's my fault,
but that's just because they're the ones that don't agree with me. You see, I have this belief that the truth
is the only way, and the correct way of handling the truth (taking it for what it is, and not as insult,
especially) is a very important aspect that I look for in anyone and everyone. And anyone who dislikes me, I
can all but guarantee you, dislikes me because of something I said to them, about them, or something else that
they just strongly disagree with.
I'll conclude this on a happy note. Tina and I have begun talking again, after a few months separation. Most
of you don't know the story (if I can even call it a story) of Tina and me, and that's because I don't share
it with just anyone. Put it this way, she means the world to me. And I don't even know why... I guess that's
what makes her special.
Wednesday, September 20, 2000
Do you really want to know the difference between boys and girls? All the physical details mean nothing, you
know. It's all about once simple reflex - this one reflex makes every human being who he/she is. What reflex?
The orgasm. Nothing is greater, some say, than the orgasm. Ah, but what's the difference, you ask? It was once
thought that the answer could never be known... but by clicking below... the answers can be known... Well, I
won't waste any more of your time. Click on...
Did you get that? Yes, quite a nice jolt. I'm sure no man would deny the pleasure coming from such a thing.
However, this is where the difference lies. So don't stop now, keep clicking...
Whoa nellie! And there you have it, the essential difference between the average male and the average female.
And remember, I'm a professional, and I urge you not to test this on your own - no, wait, go for it. :-)
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Below is a direct quote from a post from Scott's message
board by the lovely Ashley Schoening, followed by my direct response, also on the message board. I would
not put the words on my page directly from Scott's message board, but hell, she directly insulted me, and I
figure scott calls it "Our Message Board of Freedom," implying that we can use our own words and conversations
as we wish. Whatever... That's just my disclaimer, in case someone bitches at me for copying their words.
Before I just jump in to the argument, let me explain it a bit first. Michael Farinelli is one of my best
friends, so naturally we discuss things that we like and don't like. Everyone does it, and he just happened to
explain to me once upon a time that he didn't appreciate everyone (notice the emphasis on that word)
calling him "Fish" or any variation of the nickname. He didn't specifically name any names, but he did say
that it especially annoyed him when people he barely knew called him by it, because when someone who wasn't
around when the nickname was given, he would expect that they call him by his name, not by something they're
not a part of. Anyway, I tried to explain this, and Amy (much more civilized) and Ashley (much ... not) took
opposition to my view without even taking into consideration the fact that Mike is one of my best friends. Oh
well... Read the argument for yourself, and I ask you not to judge my character, just because I know you're
going to anyway.
Ashley's response (click if you want to read the discussion leading up to it):
Ok, I just got around to reading this little exchange today, and I really feel that I must respond to
it...John, Paul, whatever the hell your name is, did it ever occur to you that maybe Mike just didn't want YOU
calling him Fishy? And I'm sorry, but no matter how long you hang around our group or whatever, you will never
truly be a part of the One-Act group simply b/c you don't endure some of the things we've gone through
together for so long. One-Act has very little to do with the type of people associated or merely the time
invested - we share a comradery you wouldn't understand. Sorry, but that's just the way it is, and personally,
well, it totally pisses me off that you had to be such a fricking know-it-all about our group - you know very
little about many of the people you assume to be an expert on, so I would prefer you shut the hell up.
Oh yeah, and the message board "wouldn't have none of that"? Please...if you're really as smart as you profess
to be, stop with the grammatical errors, they merely make you look like an impudent ass-hole.
My response (click if you would like to read any responses to it, or add your own):
See, I fell in love with you before I knew what hit me, and I fell out of love with you as soon as I
realized what it was. I'm apples, your oranges, and while we've always got a peculiar way of keeping our
friendship alive, you just never seem to be able to keep yourself from "taking a tone" with me. I guess I can
understand that, but I only mention it because it isn't on my A-list...
As for the Michael ordeal, I actually wish you were right. You don't understand one thing... Mike is one of my
best friends right now, Ashley. I see him every weekend. I talk to him almost every day. And I'm quite
positive that his comments had nothing to do with me calling him Fishy, because I've NEVER done it. I almost
never call anyone by any nickname that I'm not a part of, because that's just (well I can't think of a better
word...) wrong. I'm not a part of the meaning, so what gives me the right to use it? Therefore, I've never
used it. Bad assumption... but understood. And for the record, he doesn't mind your so-called comradery
referring to him by the name "Fishy," because it has meaning from you guys, since you guys are all about and
around the creation of it (although it was a family thing, not a One-Act thing, but whatever). But he said it
does get old, and he hates it when anyone NOT in the group calls him by that name. Did I ever say I was in
your "group"? No. Did I ever imply it? No. (Though I'm sure you would argue the contrary.) And for the record,
I would hate to be a "part" of any such group that you claim to be a part of.
That's one of those social concepts that I can't grasp - why anyone would want to be a certain way around a
certain group of people just to be accepted by that group... is beyond me. I would much rather be myself and
be loved (or not, in this case) for who I am rather than for who I am not. So, love me, hate me, in between
me... whatever. It's obvious that you don't care for any friendship we may have as much as I do, so I'm
guessing I'm preaching to a brick wall.
And so you know, I take pride in my grammatical errors. They are the only details in life that keep me from
perfection. :-) (Go ahead, hit me with your best shot on that one. I dare you.) And yes, I am an impudent
asshole. This was concluded long ago. Remember, "we're not looking for Mr/Ms Right, just a man/woman with
faults that we like!"
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Big news. Well maybe. Well sorta. Well, actually, not really. But Brad is back in the business of ranting and
raving whatever comes to his mind. I personally welcome Brad's
day-to-day thought provoking babble - it provides quality entertainment, can be educational, and ... well I
think I covered it. Anyway, take a peak... Brad the Martin is back.
It always seems as though my life is finally coming together the way I want it to when something else goes
wrong. I have made vague references to social problems over the past six months or so, mostly dealing with the
loss of two great friends, Emily and Megan. Well, starting with this weekend (it seems), Megan and I seem to
be back to normal - the way things were before our breakdown. Megan was always one of the more important
people in my life, largely because I've known her longer than anyone else I know, excluding family of course.
Well, as Megan and I finally hit it off like old times again, I came to realize that the best friend that
really shined in Megan's absence, that being Brandy, has completely moved on to bigger and better things. I
can't say that I'm disappointed, because I'm really not, but Brandy is probably the only person that I can
tell anything, act any way, or pretty much do anything without feeling uncomfortable. Oh well... you win some,
you lose some, and I have this theory that everything in life balances out, no matter what anyone says to the
contrary. So... with that said, sleep is calling...
Saturday, September 9, 2000
Consider, for a moment, the seven deadly sins. Sloth, Wrath, Pride, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust and Envy. What a
pretty little list... [I relax, for a moment, from my quest for inclusive terms for evil and simply let fair
be foul and foul be fair.]
As fine a litany of human achievements as you might find: every one the emergent property of a higher-order
consciousness. Were we not intelligent, we would not know how much better off our neighbours were, or what
gratification material wealth brings, or what fine fellows we all were: no Envy, Avarice or Pride. Had we no
will, we would be unable to resist the prickings of animal stimulus, and there would be no Sloth. No capacity
for foresight, and we would simply slake our appetites for food and sex as desire and opportunity arose, and
be done with Lust and Gluttony. Our intelligence, of course, lets us secure regular supplies of each, thus
sharpening the sin with the spice of excess. Finally, Wrath: where would we be if we could not come to anger
without being threatened? Where would we be without the abstract mind that conjures a threat from memory or
reason alone, and converts it into the red-misted pumping of gland and muscle?
Of course, much of this is available to the smarter animals. Even now there are primatologists out in the
field, painstakingly cataloguing the rudimentary sins of baboons, the primitive transgressions of the forest
gorilla, and the single-minded devotion to primal wrongdoing that so marks the chimpanzee as our closest
animal relative.
It's been over a month now since Bames Jond played out his final encounter with Paul McCord and conquered The
Matrix for MIQ. EIEIO is now in shambles, and not currently a threat to the free world. But little does MIQ
know that a new enemy is surfacing, and in their own homeland of Great Britain. The corrupted Earl of Windsor,
George Washington "Boss" Pigg, and his equally devious (if a bit slow) right-hand lawman, Robert D. Coldbrain,
are out to take over Britain, and the only person who can stop them is Bames Jond, with the help of his newest
and best allies yet! Join Double-Seven-O, his new allies John, Richard, and Elizabeth Duke, and their souped
up 1969 Dodge Charger, the Admiral Lord Nelson, in the newest series of Bames Jond adventures - "The Dukes of
Windsor"! Coming soon to a paragraph (or several) near here...
Friday, September 8, 2000
I am going to continue with my last update and add a little to it. A rebuttal, if you will. Tell me what you
think. Use my guestbook, use my message board (preferred), or even use Scott's message board if you must. But
I'm curious to what those of you think of what I have to say.
The argument: The French mathematician Blaise Pascal put forward an argument that would appeal to
agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence.)
It goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be
rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have
forgone is a few sinful pleasures. If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful
pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins
will not be punished. Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth
the risk of eternal damnation?
My response: The argument has the formal charm of Pascal's great mathematical proofs (I'm a math wiz, I
have to mention that!), but unfortunately lacks their validity. There are two obtrusive objections to it. (1)
God is no fool, and if your reasons for belief are the expected gains that Pascal's argument leads you to
expect, then God will undoubtedly see you as a hypocrite whose devotion is in no way virtuous but to extract a
reward for something which had inadequate essential meaning for you - so you will be punished. (2) On the
other hand, if a skeptic's doubts are honest doubts, attended to regardless of their unpopularity after
complete consideration of the matter, God will naturally understand this and, being a just God, may well
regard this as more worthy of reward than the self-seeking of the gambling believer.
So the argument really leads only to the conclusion that no matter which path we choose, we should make up our
minds with the greatest care of which we are capable, which naturally includes study of the theist position
and atheist position alike.
Tuesday, September 5, 2000
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic
Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many
Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that
God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is
someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.) His argument goes something like this:
God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss
in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful
pleasures. If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face
eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished. Would
any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal
damnation?
"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and
cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a
child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman
jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
'Whither is God?' He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'
[...] ...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared
at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too
early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -
it has not yet reached the ears of man."
In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (literally means putting man
at the center of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human
categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation. Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism;
he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our
religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality. In the period that Nietzsche was
writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical
change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent
opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence.
Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us
to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre. The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted
God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a
prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us
clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief. Many people claim to
have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of
a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of
philosophy. The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped
developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God
presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an
ethical and meaningful way of life.
Monday, September 4, 2000
Happy Labor Day! No school for me, and probably not for you either. Sorry for the lack of updates the last
week or so. I guess I wanted my last update to be read due to its highly intelligent yet sexual meaning. So go
back and read it! If anyone cares, I have proven that my unusually high bowling scores were indeed luck,
because I bowled four games this Saturday night and I didn't break 110 (ouch). That's all I care to share
right now, although I do have a new quote - finally.
Oh yeah, my site celebrated it's first birthday this past Friday. To celebrate, I got completely drenched in
what was the monsoon of my lunchbreak Friday afternoon. I had a semi-important lunch planned... And, well, I
was soaked. :-) Anyway, thanks for hanging around this dump. I really don't see the point, unless you actually
care (which is a good reason, I guess). Well, I'd better go. My dad is trying to talk to me while I'm actually
trying to convey a message... and my train of thought is being seriously derailed.
