l0rd

Back in 09, freshly retired from RuneScape, I used to frequent OT quite a bit. In fact, I used to own and run the unofficial TIF community channel (I've taken down all the vids I made, but the ones others made are still up). Anywhoo, in August of 09, forestfrolic made a thread where we could share funny chat logs from Omegle (seen here). And on page 16 of that thread, Wongtong let us know about a new site she found which was basically like Omegle, but with video too. It was called head-to-head.org, and there were basically just TIFers on the site at the time, since it was so new. Fun was had, and we were all posting pictures of the fellow TIFers we chatted with. A few days later, the owner of head-to-head.org changed his domain the Chatroulette.com. As a 10th grader, I hadn't had too much experience with making money on the internet, but I thought the website was gonna be big, and saw this domain switch as a possible way to capitalize on being one of the first people to know of the site. So, I bought some variations of the site (miss-spelled and related). Fast forward a couple months, and Chatroulette was the new craze. It had its bit on all major news networks, and pretty much anyone who used the internet a lot become fast familiar with the fallice-filled fun that could be had on the site. The more popular the site got, the more money I made from the traffic to my domains (I parked my domains for adspace, and sold a few to developers who wanted to make forums/niche sites relating to Chatroulette). Soon enough, I was (and continue) making a few hundred dollars a month from people clicking on adspace (like adsense) on my chatroulette domains/sites that I no longer do any maintenance on. It's just such a random life-changing chain of events that started in the strangest of places, I just thought I'd share (even if a few years late). Also, I'm wondering how Wongtong was one of the first people to hear about head-to-head. :o Also, I'm not going to share the domain names or further specifics for privacy and security purposes. Here's Wongtong's post: http://forum.tip.it/topic/243430-omegle/page__st__300?do=findComment&comment=3966583 <3 2009 TIF

Hot milk Mmmm...tweak my nipple Champagne and ripple Shamans go cripple My sales go triple We drop lobotomy beats Evaporated meats On hi-tech street We go solo Dance floors and talk shows Hot dogs, no doz Hot sex in back rows I wanna know what makes you scream Be your twenty million dollar fantasy Treat you real good Expensive jeans Hollywood freaks on the hollywood scene Touch it real good if you want a piece Party people know Im that type of freak People look so snooty Take pills make them moody Automatic bzooty Zero to tutti fruitti Sex in the halls Niagra falls Local shopping malls receive Anonymous calls Hot like a cheetah Neon mamacita Eat at tacoria Pop lockin beats from korea Looking like jail bait Selling lots of real estate Looking like a hot date Banging like an 808 Do you want to feel this? Do you want to feel this? Norman schwartzkoff Something tells me you want to go home Champagne, bibles Custom clothes you own Calling up from special area codes Hollywood nuns with the hollywood phones I got nothing to do, nowhere to go Ill tell you what you want If you want to know Satin sheets Tropical oils Turn up the heat Till the swimming pool boils Let all the neighbors Read it in the papers Making all those gentlemen cry Realistic tears Jockin my mercedes Probably have my baby Shop at old navy He wish he was a lady

Overnight essay for school. It was a critical analysis of an article by this Hofstadter dewd. I posted it because I think most Americans don't even know the difference between the Declaration of Indep. and the Constitution. By 1787, flaws in the Articles of Confederations policy towards a centralized government were obvious (Princeton Review 91); a new constitution was needed. For four months in 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates met in Philadelphia and discussed and authored our now-ratified constitution. In Richard Hofstadters Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism, he brings to examination the anti-democratic political ideology of these delegates and how this formed the constitution that Americans are seemingly so unfamiliar with today. Before delving into explanations, Hofstadter establishes his thesis and the fundamental principle in these delegates ideology: To them a human being was an atom of self-interest. They did not believe in man, but they did believe in the power of a good political constitution to control him. (Hofstadter 4). In essence, the Founding Fathers thought that mans self interest, or even the interest of a majority, must be mitigated with government, as a majority of men, let alone one, do not have the hindsight to know what is best for the whole. It was the Founding Fathers belief that liberty should lay in the hands of those who have stake in it. As Hofstadter further defines their intended definition of liberty, liberty was linked not to democracy but to property. (Hofstadter 13). Thus, although these two seemingly parallel concepts in the modern-day Americans mind, the Founding Fathers would think a democratic republic to be an oxymoron. Hofstadter made it clear that the Founding Fathers believed that in owning property, you thereby have a greater stake in the hand of decisions of government. This may well be an explanation to the Declaration of Independences famous all men are created equal line. As all men are created equal, not all are worthy enough to be affected by laws regarding the freedom for property. Given their fundamental ideologies, they may be susceptible, or even favorable to moving towards a government similar to the British model they just broke away from; however, this assumption would be the furthest from the truth: What the Fathers wanted was known as balanced government. (Hofstadter 10). They did not wish to act as the only important constituent, but rather, as Hofstadter eloquently put it, A properly designed state, the Fathers believed, would check interest with interest, class with class, faction with faction, and one branch of government with another in a harmonious system of mutual frustration. (Hofstadter 10). This meant that they had to implement policies in a constitution that acted as regulators for each group within the whole. Thus, three devices were designated: the advantage of a central government, in maintaining order against a majority rule (effectively anti-democratic); the ability for citizens to vote, which allowed for a government representative of the majoritys political party; and two houses of opposing political party with an impartial overseer that had the power to veto (congress). Theoretically they could have recreated a monarchy and placed themselves at the top, but they obviously had more sense than that. And although it is fairly obvious that their political ideologies were determined greatly on their social class, they were controlledby a statesmanlike sense of moderation and scrupulously republican philosophy. (Hofstadter 29). Meaning that they wished to distribute the power. And as it should be apparent through the very title of his article, Hofstadter made it clear that the founding fathers were not idealists. These well-educated delegates were well aware of the historical failures of idealism, whether it be in religion, settlements, or government. Given their view on human instinct, we can deduce that they would think any sort of perfection within humanity to be impossible, as Hofstadter affirms, Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced government as it was set down by the constitution. However perfect a governmental model might be, conflict between factions, classes, and political ideologies will always occur and have to be dealt with. With a system that effectively pleases, or displeases, everyone as needed, a government can do its job most effectively. The Founding Fathers knew this, and wrote the Constitution accordingly.

Apologies for my obnoxiously caustic first blog post. It was actually a copy-and-paste from something else I wrote on Facebook today. Anyways, I can't decide between the white or black clone. Someone should make this easier for me and just make a clone of the old theme. Ah, anyways, I don't like blogs. They make me think that other people think that I think of myself highly and that my everyday whatdoings is interesting enough for the public eye. Just letting you know, if I do continue to add entries to this blog, most likely it is simply done for personal entertainment purposes. Help me make up more words that end in "doings".

I can't help but raise my chin at a slightly more obtuse angle than my fellow TIFer; but righteousness is had, as I believe I have earned rights of superiority to my fellow man. You see, there are three kinds of people in this world: there are the have-nots, the haves, and the l(zero)rds. I am your king, messiah, and superior to you in every way. ALL shall be taxed for their earned right to stay on my friends list--and they shall be glad to pay up, for they shall consider themselves privileged. My blog will consist of the everyday whatnots and whodoings of the single most important man on our planet. I hope you enjoy your stay, although I know you won't be enjoying yourself as much as I.