Sunday, November 30, 2003
My life is rated PG.
What is your life rated?
Thanks Zoe. At least I know now to ask parental consent before I get out of bed in the morning :P
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Our Robert,
who art in King Crimson,
Progressive be thy band.
Thy fans will come,
Thy will be done
On synth as well as guitar.
Give us this day Adrian Belew,
And forgive us our Renaissance albums,
As we forgive those who still listen to Kiss.
And fool us not by touring
with Living Color, or with Tool;
For thine is the King-dom,
The power chord and the story-board,
Now, and forever.
Yeah, man.
Not mine, but that doesn't preclude my basking in its reflected glory ;P
who art in King Crimson,
Progressive be thy band.
Thy fans will come,
Thy will be done
On synth as well as guitar.
Give us this day Adrian Belew,
And forgive us our Renaissance albums,
As we forgive those who still listen to Kiss.
And fool us not by touring
with Living Color, or with Tool;
For thine is the King-dom,
The power chord and the story-board,
Now, and forever.
Yeah, man.
Not mine, but that doesn't preclude my basking in its reflected glory ;P
Saturday, November 22, 2003
"I miss the good old days of late year 9 when I didn't doubt my sanity, when I could go to 11E, and not feel intimidated by anyone and hang out with Lisa AND Ryan... I feel lonely."
You and me both mate. Roll on the nostalgia.
You and me both mate. Roll on the nostalgia.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Well, in light of all this recent cosmological debate, I saw fit to present my view on the subject. I only hope you are disposed to keep your eyelids from slamming shut for long enough to post a comment, tacfully informing me that I know fuck all about anything to do with Philosophy or Science ^^
Energy is another man-made idea, the supposed distribution and conservation of which constitute the fundamental concepts upon which all of our scientific theories are founded. In this context, it is a mistake to consider energy in the format of a separate, singular entity: it has been established that energy is such that it cannot be "created" or "destroyed" in the traditional sense as an object by, or in itself, and we accept, therefore, that energy must be inherent in anything and everything that exists, which can be "destroyed" in human terms.
In this sense, of course, nuclear fission is the ultimate "destructive force" known to man, for it serves not merely to separate atoms from one another, but disassembles the very structure of the atoms themselves, and it is this resultant "release" of energy in the form of constituents consisting of alpha particles, beta particles and various waves, or "rays", which transmits the energy in the form of what we would refer to as being a "nuclear explosion". However, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, and we take that its supposed existence is inherent in, and dependent upon, physical manifestations within our Universe, then the quantitative distribution of these manifestations - and therefore, the energy itself - is finite; thus, it is in the harnessing of these physical embodiments of energy that we define the key to our existence as human beings, in a scientific capacity.
The physical constraints of our Universe mean perhaps that something can never be created from nothing by any established, human means - however, in the absence of any viable scientific explanation as to how these fundamental resources came to exist in the first place, belief in an ultimate, higher being - or "God" - is perfectly rational. From a religious (Christian) perspective, God is responsible for all of Creation; merely to believe in God is to accept that He is, by definition, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient - that, in short, He is all things. One might argue that God cannot exist in the traditional sense within the confines of our Universe, as, in order to effect the existence of the stars and planets - in particular, Earth - he would need to be able to "add energy". However, if we believe in the existence of God - and it is perfectly rational to do so - then we do so under the pretext that he created the Universe; in which case he must have created Matter, and as Matter is the physical embodiment of energy, God therefore "created" energy as we know it, being, as it is, inherent in all Matter. Any argument to the effect that God's power would be limited by the scientific "fact" that energy "cannot be created or destroyed" is redundant: what we call "matter" is surely only an amalgamation of lesser particles to form a construct - whether that be an atom, a proton, a neutron, or some other particular denomination.
While it would seem to hold true that Energy cannot be created or destroyed in the traditional sense, the very idea of anything being "made" or "unmade" is purely human. Energy is inherent in all Matter, and our theory is ostensibly valid: you drop a cup onto a concrete floor, and it shatters into fragments. We say that the cup - as a physical construct composed of Matter, the embodiment of energy, and defined by its purpose - ceases to exist, and therefore can, in itself, be said to have been "destroyed". However, nothing has technically ceased to be but the concept of the cup, which is exactly that: a concept. On a much less tangible scale, an exponent of any fission reaction requires the splitting of an atom to release its constituents; however, what is an atom? It is easy to think of an atom in terms of being a solid "shell" containing ever smaller denominations of particles; when we "split" the atom, however, we do so only in a figurative capacity - this scenario can be likened to that of the cup, in that the "atom" as we know it is nothing more than a coherent grouping of ever smaller particles, bound together by forces we have not the science to explain, and in "splitting" the atom, we do so not in the literal sense, but in the sense that we de-stabilise the intangible force which binds together its constituents. It is thus that we must accept the existence of Matter as the physical embodiment of energy in ever smaller denominations of particles, all of which could be theoretically de-stabilised and "split" into their own, even smaller, constituents, to an infinite degree.
To conclude, nothing can be made or unmade in anything other than a conceptual capacity; what we consider as "objects" are simply manifest constructs which may be infinitely disassembled and reassembled into the physical concepts by which their "existence" is defined - whether that be an atom, a teacup, a star, or a solar system. "Existence", by our definition of the word, is obtained only by way of the inexplicable, intangible "binding force" - what we might call Energy - which allows these denominations to form into cohesive arrangements. In this sense, it can be supposed that God effectively is Energy, and that he is omnipresent and omnipotent in that, without this force to govern all our existential concepts, nothing - from atoms, to teacups, to solar systems - could be "made" or "unmade", and nothing would "exist" in the conventional sense.
Of course, there is no material evidence as to the validity of this hypothesis, for to require such proof would defy actual faith in God; faith which, in the absence of conclusive, scientific "proof" concerning the nature of our existence, is perfectly justifiable. God Himself is intangible, but one need only open one's eyes to discern the "proof" that He is there.
And that, kids, is my perspective. God, I do talk a lot of crap sometimes; I'm not even taking bloody Philosophy, for goodness' sake...
Energy is another man-made idea, the supposed distribution and conservation of which constitute the fundamental concepts upon which all of our scientific theories are founded. In this context, it is a mistake to consider energy in the format of a separate, singular entity: it has been established that energy is such that it cannot be "created" or "destroyed" in the traditional sense as an object by, or in itself, and we accept, therefore, that energy must be inherent in anything and everything that exists, which can be "destroyed" in human terms.
In this sense, of course, nuclear fission is the ultimate "destructive force" known to man, for it serves not merely to separate atoms from one another, but disassembles the very structure of the atoms themselves, and it is this resultant "release" of energy in the form of constituents consisting of alpha particles, beta particles and various waves, or "rays", which transmits the energy in the form of what we would refer to as being a "nuclear explosion". However, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, and we take that its supposed existence is inherent in, and dependent upon, physical manifestations within our Universe, then the quantitative distribution of these manifestations - and therefore, the energy itself - is finite; thus, it is in the harnessing of these physical embodiments of energy that we define the key to our existence as human beings, in a scientific capacity.
The physical constraints of our Universe mean perhaps that something can never be created from nothing by any established, human means - however, in the absence of any viable scientific explanation as to how these fundamental resources came to exist in the first place, belief in an ultimate, higher being - or "God" - is perfectly rational. From a religious (Christian) perspective, God is responsible for all of Creation; merely to believe in God is to accept that He is, by definition, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient - that, in short, He is all things. One might argue that God cannot exist in the traditional sense within the confines of our Universe, as, in order to effect the existence of the stars and planets - in particular, Earth - he would need to be able to "add energy". However, if we believe in the existence of God - and it is perfectly rational to do so - then we do so under the pretext that he created the Universe; in which case he must have created Matter, and as Matter is the physical embodiment of energy, God therefore "created" energy as we know it, being, as it is, inherent in all Matter. Any argument to the effect that God's power would be limited by the scientific "fact" that energy "cannot be created or destroyed" is redundant: what we call "matter" is surely only an amalgamation of lesser particles to form a construct - whether that be an atom, a proton, a neutron, or some other particular denomination.
While it would seem to hold true that Energy cannot be created or destroyed in the traditional sense, the very idea of anything being "made" or "unmade" is purely human. Energy is inherent in all Matter, and our theory is ostensibly valid: you drop a cup onto a concrete floor, and it shatters into fragments. We say that the cup - as a physical construct composed of Matter, the embodiment of energy, and defined by its purpose - ceases to exist, and therefore can, in itself, be said to have been "destroyed". However, nothing has technically ceased to be but the concept of the cup, which is exactly that: a concept. On a much less tangible scale, an exponent of any fission reaction requires the splitting of an atom to release its constituents; however, what is an atom? It is easy to think of an atom in terms of being a solid "shell" containing ever smaller denominations of particles; when we "split" the atom, however, we do so only in a figurative capacity - this scenario can be likened to that of the cup, in that the "atom" as we know it is nothing more than a coherent grouping of ever smaller particles, bound together by forces we have not the science to explain, and in "splitting" the atom, we do so not in the literal sense, but in the sense that we de-stabilise the intangible force which binds together its constituents. It is thus that we must accept the existence of Matter as the physical embodiment of energy in ever smaller denominations of particles, all of which could be theoretically de-stabilised and "split" into their own, even smaller, constituents, to an infinite degree.
To conclude, nothing can be made or unmade in anything other than a conceptual capacity; what we consider as "objects" are simply manifest constructs which may be infinitely disassembled and reassembled into the physical concepts by which their "existence" is defined - whether that be an atom, a teacup, a star, or a solar system. "Existence", by our definition of the word, is obtained only by way of the inexplicable, intangible "binding force" - what we might call Energy - which allows these denominations to form into cohesive arrangements. In this sense, it can be supposed that God effectively is Energy, and that he is omnipresent and omnipotent in that, without this force to govern all our existential concepts, nothing - from atoms, to teacups, to solar systems - could be "made" or "unmade", and nothing would "exist" in the conventional sense.
Of course, there is no material evidence as to the validity of this hypothesis, for to require such proof would defy actual faith in God; faith which, in the absence of conclusive, scientific "proof" concerning the nature of our existence, is perfectly justifiable. God Himself is intangible, but one need only open one's eyes to discern the "proof" that He is there.
And that, kids, is my perspective. God, I do talk a lot of crap sometimes; I'm not even taking bloody Philosophy, for goodness' sake...
Monday, November 17, 2003
Praise be to Patrick... oh, that I only had his modicum of self-restraint.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Thought for the day: Belief is determined by faith; faith is founded upon proof; proof is a man-made concept defined subjectively by personal experience. And that, my friends, is why faith in the Bible is no less legitimate than faith in the Laws of Physics. So Lisa, your greater, philosophical point about the nature of the supposed "proof" upon which we base our scientific assumptions was quite valid, even if the whole "proof denies faith" argument is viable only from a religious standpoint.
And for those of you who might be thinking that this is unusually concise and to the point: well, I did have a structured, coherent dissertation with which to reinforce my argument, but it would seem that Blogger is a steaming pile of bollocks. So, it's another case of "tough shit" I'm afraid.
And for those of you who might be thinking that this is unusually concise and to the point: well, I did have a structured, coherent dissertation with which to reinforce my argument, but it would seem that Blogger is a steaming pile of bollocks. So, it's another case of "tough shit" I'm afraid.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
I think I shall learn graphology ^^
Thought for the day: who would've though that David Smith could set a trend, eh?
Erm, anyway - the real thought for the day: should one enter into a communal endeavour entirely of one's own volition, the nature of the resulting commitment is founded on a principle of trust, and as such, wilful neglect in fulfilling one's obligation to one's compatriates in this regard constitutes flagrant abuse of said trust, especially when it is taken into account that one is not to be the sole beneficiary of any repercussions for these shortcomings.
And Max, given that you reap only the fruits of your labours, criticism of the fruit itself when your own misconduct lies at the very root of the problem is hypocritical in the extreme.
I'm not overly concerned either way of course, being as this is, none of my god-damned business... but behind any Devil's advocate lies the Devil himself - in other words, remember that it is not me you have to answer to. And whilst you ruminate on that for a bit, I have two English essays to FUBAR... fond farewells, my friends, and a goodnight to you all :P
Erm, anyway - the real thought for the day: should one enter into a communal endeavour entirely of one's own volition, the nature of the resulting commitment is founded on a principle of trust, and as such, wilful neglect in fulfilling one's obligation to one's compatriates in this regard constitutes flagrant abuse of said trust, especially when it is taken into account that one is not to be the sole beneficiary of any repercussions for these shortcomings.
And Max, given that you reap only the fruits of your labours, criticism of the fruit itself when your own misconduct lies at the very root of the problem is hypocritical in the extreme.
I'm not overly concerned either way of course, being as this is, none of my god-damned business... but behind any Devil's advocate lies the Devil himself - in other words, remember that it is not me you have to answer to. And whilst you ruminate on that for a bit, I have two English essays to FUBAR... fond farewells, my friends, and a goodnight to you all :P
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Curiosity got the better of me, it seems.
Regarding letter size... you clicked "Medium". Because your writing is neither really tiny or really large, this aspect of your writing is not a significant piece of your personality puzzle. We know you are not as intense as those tiny writers and you aren't as "flighty" as some of those really large writers. So, you fall into the middle-of-the-road on this character trait.
Concerning the letter slant of your sample (slant reveals emotional outlay)... you chose "Vertical". You use logical sound judgments to make decisions. You\re ruled by your head, not your heart. You tend to be cool, calm and collected and are good under pressure. In a situation where other people might get hysterical, you have poise.
Some may see you as "detached" or "unemotional". It's not that you don't feel emotions, you just have more discernment when and with whom you express your inner most feelings. You keep them inside longer than most people do. (If your writing is very large you can be very social, friendly and talkative, but still emotionally logical.)
The first time someone makes you mad, you probably won't say anything. But, you'll mentally put a mark on the wall and keep your mouth shut until they piss you off again and again. Then, BOOM! You'll explode, all that pent-up anger comes pouring out! And, you won't feel any regret at all, because you know they deserved it.
It may sound harsh, but you're ruled by self-interest. In emotional situations you ask yourself, "What's best for me?" And, unlike others, you actually have the discipline to follow your logic rather than your emotional whims.
In a relationship, you tend to show your affection by the things you DO rather than the things you SAY. The only exception is if your mate has expressed a need to hear "I love you" on a daily basis, then you'll gladly express this out of respect for your partner's needs.
Relating to the letters "d" and "t", your selection of "A loop in the stem"... indicates that you're very sensitive to criticism from others. This trait is both a "fear of disapproval" and a "desire for approval". It can be seen as a weakness, because you might feel physical discomfort in your body when you're criticized. At the same time, a sincere compliment can make your whole day.
If the loop in the "d" is so large it looks like a hot air balloon, then there are times when you IMAGINE that you're being criticized, when in reality, you aren't!
P.S. I'm not being critical... you're just imagining it. ( See what I mean??!! )
Looking at the letter "i", you chose "i-dot is just about normal". This is a good trait to have, because it shows loyalty... a true commitment to stand by those people or ideas that you truly believe in.
You might consider something creative as a profession. I say this, because looking at the "i", you also chose "Open or circle dot above the stem". This tells me that you have a desire to be different and a particular creative flair. Circle i-dots are common among artists, musicians and teenagers trying to stand out from the crowd. Which one are you?
Oh boy... the letter "o"... this is a very insightful letter. When you picked "No inner loops, letter is clean and crisp", that told me that you are very blunt, candid and brutally honest. You are also very straightforward when asked your opinion. You find secrets and deceit just unnecessary. But, most people are not as revealing as you tend to be. So, just a suggestion... if your significant other asks, "Do you think I need to lose a little weight?", just pretend that you have to go the bathroom and leave the room. And remember the deadly question... "Do I look fat in this dress?" Hint: LIE!
When I asked about the shape of the tops of the humps in the letters "m" and "n", you chose "Needle sharp points". This let's me know that you're a Comprehensive Thinker. In other words, you can see a problem, instantly size it up, and come up with a solution. But be careful, you have a tendency to get irritated at people who don't think as quickly as you. I have good news and bad news... Albert Einstein had "m" humps like you. The bad news is... so did Adolf Hitler. You're smart... what you do with it is up to you.
Excellent characteristic!!! When I asked about the shape of the tops of the humps in the letters "m" and "n", you chose "Vary between rounded and pointed". This is the best of both kind of thinkers. You can process information both in a cumulative/procedural fashion and also in a comprehensive/fast fashion. This means that you can adapt to the people around you. If you're with a slow talker, you can slow down and explain every detail. If you're talking to someone who only wants the "bottom-line", big picture facts, you can speed up your thinking.
This is an important trait! When I asked you how high the t-bar is crossed on the stem of the letter "t", you chose "Midway up the stem". This tells me that you set goals that are realistic, practical, and obtainable and that your self-esteem is good, but not super high. I would suspect you still have an aversion to taking too much of a risk and you'll hedge on the side of security.
The good news is your confidence is strong enough to leave a really bad situation and take those first key steps toward living your dreams. People that cross their "t's" in the upper middle are pragmatic and secure with themselves. But, there are still more dreams to achieve... so stretch yourself even more!
When asked how the t-bar ends, you chose "Knife point toward the right". This tells me that you are a bit of a smart-ass. Uhmm... sorry... the politically correct term is "sarcastic".
You see, sarcasm is a wonderful means of defending your ego. Often this sarcasm comes out as a wry sense of humor. People love that. But, if you're at all insecure, it can be directed at others and be a bit caustic and hurtful. Might I suggest that you bite your tongue next time you want to pipe in with a smart comment.
You told me that your t-bar is predominately located "Mostly right of the stem". This stroke means indicates a short fuse when you get upset. If all of your t-bars are on the right, it means you do have a problem with your temper. (However, there are many factors that could counteract this tendency such as small writing, backwards writing or if you learned to write English in India. If so, you might not be such a hothead.)
This is a great trait! Concerning your lower case t's, the last question deals with the TILT of the t-bar. You chose "Upward toward sky"... which tells me that you're optimistic, forward thinking, and a self-starter. Optimism is one key trait of successful and happy people. So, even if your life sucks today, you automatically assume that it will be better tomorrow!
Concerning your y's and g's, you chose "Curves leftward like a fishhook". This trait signifies that you are experiencing frustration, perhaps with a relationship, or in your sex life. Hey, look on the bright side... you HAVE a strong healthy sex drive... you just aren't getting enough.
When I asked you if the first letter of your signature was larger than the other letters, you indicated that it was. This tells me you have a strong sense of who you are and a healthy "ego". I mean ego in a good way... it takes an expanded sense of self-importance to get things done and demand the world give you what you deserve.
So, your larger letters in your signature indicate a tendency to show the world your self-assured and confident side. The larger the letters... the stronger the ego. If you want to know your full self-image, re-read the section on where you cross your t-bar.
If the personal pronoun "I" is larger than the other letters or words, you have a healthy ego. The bigger the personal pronoun "I"... the stronger the sense of self-really is. So, a larger capital "I" indicates you think quite highly of yourself.
Regarding letter size... you clicked "Medium". Because your writing is neither really tiny or really large, this aspect of your writing is not a significant piece of your personality puzzle. We know you are not as intense as those tiny writers and you aren't as "flighty" as some of those really large writers. So, you fall into the middle-of-the-road on this character trait.
Concerning the letter slant of your sample (slant reveals emotional outlay)... you chose "Vertical". You use logical sound judgments to make decisions. You\re ruled by your head, not your heart. You tend to be cool, calm and collected and are good under pressure. In a situation where other people might get hysterical, you have poise.
Some may see you as "detached" or "unemotional". It's not that you don't feel emotions, you just have more discernment when and with whom you express your inner most feelings. You keep them inside longer than most people do. (If your writing is very large you can be very social, friendly and talkative, but still emotionally logical.)
The first time someone makes you mad, you probably won't say anything. But, you'll mentally put a mark on the wall and keep your mouth shut until they piss you off again and again. Then, BOOM! You'll explode, all that pent-up anger comes pouring out! And, you won't feel any regret at all, because you know they deserved it.
It may sound harsh, but you're ruled by self-interest. In emotional situations you ask yourself, "What's best for me?" And, unlike others, you actually have the discipline to follow your logic rather than your emotional whims.
In a relationship, you tend to show your affection by the things you DO rather than the things you SAY. The only exception is if your mate has expressed a need to hear "I love you" on a daily basis, then you'll gladly express this out of respect for your partner's needs.
Relating to the letters "d" and "t", your selection of "A loop in the stem"... indicates that you're very sensitive to criticism from others. This trait is both a "fear of disapproval" and a "desire for approval". It can be seen as a weakness, because you might feel physical discomfort in your body when you're criticized. At the same time, a sincere compliment can make your whole day.
If the loop in the "d" is so large it looks like a hot air balloon, then there are times when you IMAGINE that you're being criticized, when in reality, you aren't!
P.S. I'm not being critical... you're just imagining it. ( See what I mean??!! )
Looking at the letter "i", you chose "i-dot is just about normal". This is a good trait to have, because it shows loyalty... a true commitment to stand by those people or ideas that you truly believe in.
You might consider something creative as a profession. I say this, because looking at the "i", you also chose "Open or circle dot above the stem". This tells me that you have a desire to be different and a particular creative flair. Circle i-dots are common among artists, musicians and teenagers trying to stand out from the crowd. Which one are you?
Oh boy... the letter "o"... this is a very insightful letter. When you picked "No inner loops, letter is clean and crisp", that told me that you are very blunt, candid and brutally honest. You are also very straightforward when asked your opinion. You find secrets and deceit just unnecessary. But, most people are not as revealing as you tend to be. So, just a suggestion... if your significant other asks, "Do you think I need to lose a little weight?", just pretend that you have to go the bathroom and leave the room. And remember the deadly question... "Do I look fat in this dress?" Hint: LIE!
When I asked about the shape of the tops of the humps in the letters "m" and "n", you chose "Needle sharp points". This let's me know that you're a Comprehensive Thinker. In other words, you can see a problem, instantly size it up, and come up with a solution. But be careful, you have a tendency to get irritated at people who don't think as quickly as you. I have good news and bad news... Albert Einstein had "m" humps like you. The bad news is... so did Adolf Hitler. You're smart... what you do with it is up to you.
Excellent characteristic!!! When I asked about the shape of the tops of the humps in the letters "m" and "n", you chose "Vary between rounded and pointed". This is the best of both kind of thinkers. You can process information both in a cumulative/procedural fashion and also in a comprehensive/fast fashion. This means that you can adapt to the people around you. If you're with a slow talker, you can slow down and explain every detail. If you're talking to someone who only wants the "bottom-line", big picture facts, you can speed up your thinking.
This is an important trait! When I asked you how high the t-bar is crossed on the stem of the letter "t", you chose "Midway up the stem". This tells me that you set goals that are realistic, practical, and obtainable and that your self-esteem is good, but not super high. I would suspect you still have an aversion to taking too much of a risk and you'll hedge on the side of security.
The good news is your confidence is strong enough to leave a really bad situation and take those first key steps toward living your dreams. People that cross their "t's" in the upper middle are pragmatic and secure with themselves. But, there are still more dreams to achieve... so stretch yourself even more!
When asked how the t-bar ends, you chose "Knife point toward the right". This tells me that you are a bit of a smart-ass. Uhmm... sorry... the politically correct term is "sarcastic".
You see, sarcasm is a wonderful means of defending your ego. Often this sarcasm comes out as a wry sense of humor. People love that. But, if you're at all insecure, it can be directed at others and be a bit caustic and hurtful. Might I suggest that you bite your tongue next time you want to pipe in with a smart comment.
You told me that your t-bar is predominately located "Mostly right of the stem". This stroke means indicates a short fuse when you get upset. If all of your t-bars are on the right, it means you do have a problem with your temper. (However, there are many factors that could counteract this tendency such as small writing, backwards writing or if you learned to write English in India. If so, you might not be such a hothead.)
This is a great trait! Concerning your lower case t's, the last question deals with the TILT of the t-bar. You chose "Upward toward sky"... which tells me that you're optimistic, forward thinking, and a self-starter. Optimism is one key trait of successful and happy people. So, even if your life sucks today, you automatically assume that it will be better tomorrow!
Concerning your y's and g's, you chose "Curves leftward like a fishhook". This trait signifies that you are experiencing frustration, perhaps with a relationship, or in your sex life. Hey, look on the bright side... you HAVE a strong healthy sex drive... you just aren't getting enough.
When I asked you if the first letter of your signature was larger than the other letters, you indicated that it was. This tells me you have a strong sense of who you are and a healthy "ego". I mean ego in a good way... it takes an expanded sense of self-importance to get things done and demand the world give you what you deserve.
So, your larger letters in your signature indicate a tendency to show the world your self-assured and confident side. The larger the letters... the stronger the ego. If you want to know your full self-image, re-read the section on where you cross your t-bar.
If the personal pronoun "I" is larger than the other letters or words, you have a healthy ego. The bigger the personal pronoun "I"... the stronger the sense of self-really is. So, a larger capital "I" indicates you think quite highly of yourself.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
The black beast scampers
On cragged cobbles, caked
In manifold twilight transgressions
Of midnights past; malformed,
Refused, repressed, wretched
On this face his soul is etched
Tall tenements loom, transcendent
Tombs of grave repose
And ill-repute, resplendant
But this pathway draws him down.
In death's dagger-dance, we can translate
His soul this night shall meet its fate.
On cragged cobbles, caked
In manifold twilight transgressions
Of midnights past; malformed,
Refused, repressed, wretched
On this face his soul is etched
Tall tenements loom, transcendent
Tombs of grave repose
And ill-repute, resplendant
But this pathway draws him down.
In death's dagger-dance, we can translate
His soul this night shall meet its fate.
Friday, November 07, 2003
"So horny he could burst a lead balloon."
Monday, November 03, 2003
Lost track of time this morning, as a result of which I was tragically, unashamedly late. Chalk it down to that god-damned Club biscuit bar, and its unnerving similarity in shape/texture to previous Penguin bars. Having made prior error in judgment, I proceeded to strive for my daily injection of pre-packaged, corporate-branded humour, but to no avail. That's at least fifteen fucking seconds of my life I'll never get back. Maybe I'll sue.
Thought for the day: I can now justifiably claim to have survived my own funeral! I kid you not: I proceed, post-haste, to the first floor office with the intention of handing in my insurance form to Mrs. Gwilliam, as per her prior instructions - all well and good, you might think. In a characteristic lapse of memory, however, I fail to realise that this particular item is due in a week previously. Fortunately for myself, she has chosen to be uncharacteristically lenient in her time-keeping, the off-shoot of which is that I succeed in overcoming said hurdle relatively unscathed. At least, I can only presume this to be so, being as she was, not there. Quite in contrast to myself, aforementioned insurance form presently rests in an undeniably scathed state on Mrs. Gwilliam's keyboard. Upon her return, a mere downward glance will reveal it to her, in all its humble glory, almost as if it had been there all along. Conversely, she could fail in this endeavour, and proceed to rend my beloved insurance form to tattered shreds in a frenzy of unprovoked typing. Nevermind; either way, acts of God are covered by insurance... right?
Thought for the day: I can now justifiably claim to have survived my own funeral! I kid you not: I proceed, post-haste, to the first floor office with the intention of handing in my insurance form to Mrs. Gwilliam, as per her prior instructions - all well and good, you might think. In a characteristic lapse of memory, however, I fail to realise that this particular item is due in a week previously. Fortunately for myself, she has chosen to be uncharacteristically lenient in her time-keeping, the off-shoot of which is that I succeed in overcoming said hurdle relatively unscathed. At least, I can only presume this to be so, being as she was, not there. Quite in contrast to myself, aforementioned insurance form presently rests in an undeniably scathed state on Mrs. Gwilliam's keyboard. Upon her return, a mere downward glance will reveal it to her, in all its humble glory, almost as if it had been there all along. Conversely, she could fail in this endeavour, and proceed to rend my beloved insurance form to tattered shreds in a frenzy of unprovoked typing. Nevermind; either way, acts of God are covered by insurance... right?
