kelem_ryu

guitar - creep by radiohead bass - ein mensch brennt by rammstein i hardly play drums, but once i played ms jackson by outcast

What a monster topic.. Well i watch approximately a movie a day recently (viva la high speed internetconnection :-$ ) Last three were: Videodrome by Croneberg - idk.. it's a little 80s and Bmovie. Somehow interesting though, because first you think it's going to be a little pornographic a la emmanuell or something but then it develops into a surrealistic something, that actually has more depth then you migth think at first. Those magnificent men and their flying machines - a 60ties comedia playing around 1910 about flying machines. Nice to watch but pretty meaningless. Thank you for smoking - Great! really loved that one. Fun & entertaining and at the same time lights the smoking witchhunt from an interesting point of view.

lol! how could this movie be "bad"? as if the aviator would have been "bad". Maybe it wasn't goodfellas or taxi driver but still a not that great scorseese movie beats your average hollywood production by lengths. Also imo the only bad thing about the aviator might be the material and maybe the a little inconclusive ending. The acting and direction where awsome.

Actually the results are better when you sing over music without lyrics.

Thank you, but i think i have already found out. I choose Street Spirit by Radiohead. One of the songs i learned playing guitar with. Sounds like i'll start to cry or vomit anytime, but oh well.. I had to get drunk, because if i'm sober it's much worse: http://rapidshare.com/files/1434800/street_spirit_cover[extension not allowed].html oh btw Ragen! i can't download your song. Says it hadn't enough downloads recently so it got deleted :x

lol.. okay now i just have to find a way to post them... btw (while i'm waiting for the upload) How2PK (Dan is the name?), singing whilst playbacking the original song, including voice, like you did i think always leads to bad results.

so i can't just cover a song? because it seems i'm completely unable to write lyrics.

I know 23 people who smoke weed. Most of which have been doing it for almost 5 or more years, none of those 23 have tried anything harder. I also know 4 people (we'll refer to them as A B C and D) who have been in rehab for addiction to heroin / meth / etc. Only D smoked weed, and that was AFTER rehab for heroin addiction. A, B and C were introduced to "hard drugs" at raves, where they purchased Ecstay. And D was a victim of peer pressure from the other 3. Ironically, the 23 who only smoke weed hardly go clubbing. And there's enough proof out there to show that the use of hard drugs during dance parties, raves, etc is rather disturbing. People have DIED at those events when using those drugs for the FIRST TIME. So in my opinion, soft drugs are no more a gateway than the people the users hang out with and the enviroments they visit frequently. Many people i know that smoke pot now take acid, speed and e on a more or the less regular basis. They attend raves too.

It seems your parents are just terribly unrelaxed. That's NOt your fault. Try to see why they are so stressful and (I know it sounds corny) give them some love. For example when your mother is angry because she had to wait, that just indicates that she is under stress, no human being would mind waiting a little if he/she is completely relaxed. So counter this stressfullness with your own calmness, without being arrogant. All that is not as easy as it might sound, but it's the way to be (at least for me). Point is that (it seems) your parents are putting you under pressure with the stress they have. This should make you angry at first, but it doesn't help anyone if you get angry with them. Apparently they suffer so they deserve your sympathy.

Probably already too late, but you could compare the Gilgamesh Epos with the story of Herakles/Hercules. There are also stories of a great flood in almost all cultures. Creation stories work as well of course as well as Armageddon. btw in greek mythology Prometheus gave man the fire.

Heh, I didn't make it, got it off fark. All the data is true, someone just added that too it. So it's relevant, and funny. That's what makes it so awesome. :D You know what? It's probably true! Kind of. Speaking from my experience with addiction (i was/am addicted to coke (as in pepsi), cigarettes, marijuhana, TV and RS. Currently cigarettes and working on getting an alcohol addiction.) MMORPGs are definitely very addictive.

Let people do what they want to do. No drug is bad per se. Problems come from frequent use (and there are people out there, who are constantly high and live "good" lives.) I don't believe in prohibitation. As somebody already suggested in this thread, if people commit crimes under the influence of drugs, they should be punished for the crime. Drug influence is no excuse imo. That drugs often lead to addiction and mental and physical health issues should be obvious. Still happy, healthy people people have nothing to fear from drugs. (To counter this myth, where it seems people believe, that if you where forced to take a drug, you'd automatically be addicted. Wich is just wrong.) You just become addicted when you voulntary take a drug over a period of time. If you like the effect instantly the risk is of course bigger. (Cocain for example can lead to addiction pretty fast. However i know people who take cocain only once in a while and are fine with that.) Of all the drugs i took in my life cigarettes are by far the most hazardous imo.

I did Capoeira for some time and not even the trainers had a white belt (wich is the highest rank), not even a red one, but a purple one, so the third highest and they where original brazilians and could do amazing stuff, like doing flic flacks through the hall ending in a one handed handstand or stretched backflips and stuff like that.

I didn't say there had to be a physical something - but there still has to be an uncaused cause. Aristotle's uncaused cause (Aristotle was the first person to come up with the idea after realizing all other movement would require an infinite regress) was a thought - so that agrees entirely with you. There still has to be something that causes existance without having to be caused itself. ... Whoever can prove it's nature will harvest the worship of generations of philosophers. :P

Looking at your avatar and sig you can't blame people for that.

Your name is Isabel? I love that name, it has a warm and exotic ring to it. Oh well thankyou very much. Hm, I don't think I like it much actually. It's exotic certainly (English form of Spanish Elizabeth apparently) but I dunno, I don't think it suits me...well that's my opinion, everyone else's is probably different... :? I believed it's hebrew. There is an "Isebel" in the bibel (somewhere in the book of kings)

Well like I said, one day it just was there, whatever "it" may be. No, it's impossible for something to come from nothing... think of it like this... Nothing Nothing Nothing vanished!!- SOMETHING BIGBANG!! You can't get somthing from nothing... it just isn't possible... Also nothing is unatainable in our world, thinking of nothing as a white sheet won't work because white is a color which is somthing... you just can't imigine nothing... our brains are too febal... Actually the Buddhists believe that only nothing is real. Everything else is an illusion. As far as i figured it out it can be imagined like the surface of a waterbody (nothing). When you throw a stone into it, or wind comes up you got waves (something). However they also claim, that you need to meditate years over this topic to fully comprehend it.

hm... ...and then there's the english or german question. To write in english or german. You are maybe right though. Maybe i shouldn't try to make sense when i write lyrics. Have to contemplate about everything you all say anyway.

If you don't think it's actually like a cancer, tumor, or parasite then don't say it is. Say it is the same as an unwanted body part - don't compare it to three different things that are unwanted because they kill you. Compare it to something more relevant, like clipping your toenails or cutting your hair. It's not defined as a parasite because it's not - if you're trying to make a point, use accurate language please. Man, that's obnoxiously self-righteous. Why do you think we don't know what that means? Do you honestly think you're that smart that you know all these words other people don't know? We don't need to be told to look up words we don't know, and we don't need you to assume we don't know things. Well actually i wanted to agree that an embryo IS a parasite. To be save i looked up the definition of a parasite. Don't be so hot headed Ranger!

:shock: :cry: Yah let's leave this discussion be. Waste of energy for all involved.

hm.. okay, but cancer is always unwanted. Embryos are sometimes wanted, sometimes not.

A creature living inside you is no more than a cancer, a tumor, a parasite if it is unwanted. A woman has the right to get rid of it, in the same way she has the right to get rid of a cancer. I am completly pro-choice on the issue. Potentiality does not equal actuality either. Uprooting an oak is different from unearthing an acorn. Nah. You can't really say it this way, because a baby probably won't kill the mother. Also the people who argue wheter an embryo is sentinent or not will tear you into pieces. Still an embryo is an organism that feeds off the mother. She has to eat enough to support both her and the baby. Despite that an embryo isn't a parasite because it is philogenetically ident (just looked up the definition), although this part of the definition just seems to be there to exclude embryos.

Uhm.. yes i do know what the natural philosphers where concerned with. Hardly know anything about Newtons philosophy though. I don't have the slightest idea how my knowledge about pre socratians and Newton disqualifies my statement about the credibility of academic knowledge in general. I just pointed out, that regardless of wether i have much "academic information" about drugs or not (which might be the case or not), i came to the conclusion that (imo) academics are vastly overrated. I pointed out that i study philosophy, to make it believable that my claim isn't just emotional, but the product of many a thought instead. EDIT: Now that i think about it the common concept amongst natural philosphers about deriving theories from observation actually fits into the context, because i have observed the subject "drugs" very closely. What i hoped for was somebody asking for more details, to get a more sophisticated opinion. But no! Somehow there is always unneccessary arguing.

Hey! That really isn't a bad idea at all. I have to take some courses i can choose freely for my study anyway. I could do something in that direction. Well.. ty

The longer i study philosophy (on the university of vienna) the stronger my grudge with academic/scientific information becomes.