um... where to start...

Mary. Yes, I am a hipocrite. But if you think I don't hate every day that I live in Riverbend, you are sadly mistaken. There's actually a certain level of guilt hanging over me, knowing exactly what used to be on this land, and knowing what's there now. I recognize that all of Edmonton was built on prime farmland and wildlife habitat, I never said that it wasn't. But considering all the potential for infill and regeneration of already developed areas (or brownfields, etc) I do not see the point in taking up more and more of that prime farmland and wildlands. And, because I've learned this in classes (and I'm not expecting you all to know it), I know that the North East corner of the city is far superior in its farmland than the Southern side of the city. That doesn't mean I want to see more development on the South. I hate sprawl anywhere. If I could, I would move out of my parents' house now and live in one of the really old houses in the city core, or a loft, or anything that 's reusing already built structures. But I don't have the money for that at the moment, and even if I did that doesn't stop my parents from living in Riverbend now does it?

not that I really want to make this parallel, it just came to me and I felt like spitting it out: this whole discussion about "you can't be talking about this when you're part of it" makes me think about religion and how, for example, people can act all high-and mighty as Christians but still be committing sins, until the rug gets pulled out from under them and they realise that they are just as lowly and need to be as penitent as the next person. If the same rule that you're suggesting with your response to my previous statements applies to Christianity, only non-sinners can be Christians. People of every background can be environmentalists, they just have to recognise and work on their own shortcomings within that identity, just like Christians have to repent and seek forgiveness for their sins... though they keep on committing them. Just an example, and I'm only pulling out the whole Christian thing because it's something I'm familiar with and I didn't want to get the parallel wrong. I'm not trying to persecute anyone.

Yes, people in Alberta have made the stupid mistake of paving over and buiding upon some of the world's best farmland... other pieces of it have been turned into chemical wastelands too... none of that is good. People have to live somewhere, so they've built, and thus we have the cities and towns all over prime farmland and wildlife habitat right now. I can't change back what's already happened. But I can possibly change what's yet to come. That's why I think it's important that we stop and think about what's going on in other areas of the city... whether it's Ellerslie (some gorgeous wetland and wildlife habitat is gone, even a wildlife sanctuary and huge butterfly habitat were paved over for the Anthony Henday) or Horse Hills, it's all part of the city, and it's all worth preserving for more than its realestate value as houses and subdivisions... though we really haven't come up with a good accounting system for environmental benefits just yet. We've lost parts of our "Ribbon of Green" because the realestate value was just too high... even though it's a floodplain...

Tom Thanks for your paper. It was very interesting. Admittedly I didn't know too much about Little Mountain, just that it was lost. You have a good summation of everything and a great way of putting it down on paper.

In other areas of your discussions you mentioned my appearance as being two-faced, or perhaps just a 'good politician' (I detect that it came with a little contempt or irony too...). I have a problem: I can see why both sides (or multiple sides) to an argument are good, so it's hard for me to not give them equal weight, regardless of how I feel personally. I do not condone violence, but I can see where it would be useful. I do not support ecoterrorism, but I can see why people do it. (these are the kinds of statements that usually make me fail those pre-employment screening exams at places like grocery stores and video rental places) I am not ECOS, but people are going to think that I am, so it behooves me to act and speak in a certain way.

Regardless, even as an individual, I do not support the burning of new subdivisions, the sugaring of gas tanks or any of the other endless ecoterrorist possibilities. I would rather see the peaceful protests that have people forming human chains across roads into the Clayoquot Sound forests, or stopping developers in the city of Edmonton. I would rather see letter writing campaigns or people speaking to their representatives and making their voices heard. The small bit of marxist in me knows that violence is a solution we cannot discount, but it should only be a last resort, and I don't think ecoterrorism is the way to go about doing it anyway. The logic behind burning homes just surprises me. The amount of pollution being created by the burning of such horrid substances as vinyl siding (yes, we have it on our house, but that doesn't mean I like it), totally nullifies the point being made. And that's the same with every other form of eco terrorism. I'd rather see a tree-sit than tree spiking... same net effect - they can't cut down the trees - but at least with a sit, there's no chance of maiming the innocent forester. And I do see them as innocent, they're just as ordinary and regular as anyone else. We're all cogs in the machine and we need to fix the machine, but not by hurting the cogs.

Look, all I really want is dialogue and awareness. And I'd rather get that through peaceful means. The only violence I'm apt to condone is smacking Taylor over the head for suggesting such a bizarre fight as Tom versus me. Though I think I'll agree too that Tom is likely to win, seeing as the minute horniness comes into it, I usually get too creeped out to do anything but act defensively.

Yeah, that's the site, Beck.

Actually, I'm sure that shielding cables will have an effect, because there's some legitimate and sensical reason for doing it. But if you read the review of Shakti Stones, it doesn't make sense. They send the guy two kits with "just four" 'on-line stabilizers,' (at $100 a pop) and some unknown number of stones (for sake of argument, lets say one stone per kit ($200 each).)

Of course, this doesn't work for the reviewer. He talks to the rep, and the rep comes by with "boxes and boxes" of them. In the end, he does notice a difference, but he ends up with "eleven Stones and thirty-six On-Lines"!! Quick calculation, and we're up to $5800!

By the way, you can buy 1939 6 foot shielded audio cables from Radio Shack for that price. That's 2.2 miles of shielded cable (not even buying in bulk) for the cost of 'stoning' your living room (haha.)

Oh, and because you were asking, Beck, I found where Randi explained the double-blind test of the communication with dead relatives when he was on Larry King with Sylvia Browne. Essentially, they get 10 people who believe that Sylvia can communicate with the dead and have lost a loved one in the past year. They submit their age, gender, and name. Then they pick a random person from the list of 10, give her the biographical information of the person (the living person, that it) and get her to do a non-interactive reading (i.e. no probing questions.)

They get the person who did the reading to score it out of 10. Then they get the nine people who didn't get the reading to look at a transcript or audio tape and (I presume comparing to their own loved one's experience) score it out of 10. If eight out of the nine present a score lower than that of the one doing the reading, Sylvia Browne wins the million dollars. She agreed to the conditions.

And he's still waiting...

website... almost... done. essay... still not... done. tired. must not sleep. final exam tonight, don't forget to study... argh...

hmm... I never actually read the information within the contained links for those "shakti stones", and especially after reading the link you posted, Beck, I wonder how much product testing goes into that stuff.

Then again, though I'd like to say it's a scam... you never know. The shakti stones, if they DO block EMI as they so claim would actually be really useful. As for that hallograph thing that looks like a coat-rack, I'm far more skeptical. That thing looks ridiculous. But again... you never know. Ridiculous-looking egg-carton shaped foam on your walls deadens the sound of a room, stupid-looking large carpeted pillars kills unwanted resonance, and slats of wood on the far wall decrease unwanted audio reflections. These things are all clearly retarded-looking and yet I've had enough experience with sound rooms to know they work. So although those stupid-ass coathangers look improbable, I wouldn't actually be able to say with any confidence whether or not it's a scam. Although obviously the scientific principles utilized in describing them is clearly off the mark.

Shit.
I'm getting tired.
Gotta finish this essay.
Gotta start this webpage.

Hey Tay,

You should check this out, I think this may be where Par got those Shakti stones thing from but I'm not sure.
http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html#6
It's about half way down and covers more audiophile "equipment"

Just die? Pfft. That's all?

Tonight I'm gonna fuckin die and as soon as they put me 6 feet down Ima gonna rape me some deaders at knifepoint while dessecrating their own 15 year old graves and then come back to life because the dead don't want me. That's how brutal my night's going to be. I gotta finish off my 2-week late essay, create an entire comprehensive website from scratch (by noon tomorrow) and somehow find time to study for the final exam which is for the same class my late essay is due. Did I mention I haven't been to that class in 4 weeks?

Did I mention I haven't done any of the readings?

As my "new favourite band" would say: "You're better off dead than makin a mess of me!!!" 10 points to whoever figures out which awesome song by which awesome band that's from. Hint: it's awesome.

i'll put in my two cents worth on Ecoterrorism after i'm done my paper on Lethal and Non-Lethal weapons. possibly the last Soc thing i do. eerie
but tonight, as "my new favourite band" the Hives would say, I'm gonna DIE, ALRIGHT!

Courtney Love on Scott Stapp:

"I played him [my song] mono on the phone once and he said, 'can you help my 16 year old sister be a rock star?' and I'm like NO, but I can help you ditch your dumb songs!"


haha.

BUG REPORT FOR PARAS:

How come when I search this page for "breasts" and "boobs" all I get is 2 lousy posts from Alison? I think your search function is prone to one of two possible errors, paras:

1. It's broke.
2. It sucks fat asses.


Fix that shit. I want boobs NOW!

hmmmm normally my horniess is considered a hindrance because it impairs the normal function of my brain but perhaps if i could only focus that energy in the right way i would be unstoppable....