Allow myself to introduce... myself

Sat, 02 Dec 2006 05:04:51 GMT

Here's how it went
French, then a free block where prowten ted & I came to my house to get my guitar and I mixed a rum & soda for later. Sociology, doing a no-brainer activity the entire time. Free block, town with henry and cam to new london and some minor drinking of said rum & soda. Then math quiz, I owned it which I did not expect and then got out early and chilled with the hannahs. Then two free blocks in a row chillin with julius and hannah and hannah and graham. And I finished the rum & soda and was kinda drunk and havin a great time. Then bowl run immediatley after school with jared rose, I can't move when he brings me home and I take a two hour power nap. Then off to pick up alex and go meet ted and mike and we drive around aimlessly for probably an hour.
This is when it got reallll good.
Bobby showed up so me, alex, ted, bobby and tyler cristy and we went to bobby's house and smoked ted up for the first time in almost a year cuz of his probation. Essentially me and ted and tyler got RIPPED and alex got trashed and bobby got both, and we spray painted every surface of bobby's room. It was chaos. And ridiculously funny for some odd reason. Then wendy's.
Wendy's was.... wow. Alex was DONE. So he stayed in the car while we went in cuz he couldn't walk right or speak and we had covered him in spraypaint. We're ordering and the fucking woman is giving us all kinds of shit, "I hate you teenagers, why do you always have to come in right as we're about to close? Take it to go so we don't have to clean up after you. We close at 10, I'm giving you 15 minutes then get out (It's currently 915)" We're irritated and eat in the place and make a huge mess, but we meet up with kids we vaguely/don't know, two groups; form sudbury and from acton. That was fun, they were wicked funny. then alex came in. sat down, goes IM DRUNK, eats half a salt shaker, and boots all over the table. That's when we decided it was best to leave.
Alex went right home, and we went party chasing but didn't actually know where we were going and ended up back at bobby's. where bobby promptly passed out and I watched march of the penguins, then went home.

Then, the best part of my evening, I walk into my room and hear this ringing from my bed, it's my dad calling the brand new razr he got as an early christmas present for me today. FINALLY I HAVE A PHONE THAT WORKS LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO!!!!!! YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaHHHHHHHHHHHH

awesome day after a few bad ones, gonna go pass out now. gnight

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:31:06 GMT

'Today we begin with a hypothetical scenario, that -on its surface- may seem to have a straight forward, obvious,undiable answer. However, the question raises a larger popint about everything we pretend to understand about relationships, and particularly what we assume we understand about monogamy (and where monogamy technically begins). So while your answer to this question might seem unambiguous, the criteria you use to reach the conclusion are generally more important. In other words, what you say doesn't matter as much as why you chose to say it.
The scenario is called "The Jack and Jane Hypothetical", and is as follows:

Let's say you have two friends named Jack and Jane. They have been romantically involved for two years, and the relationship has always been good. Suddenly, Jack calls you on the phone and sadly mutters, "Jane just broke up with me." You ask why this happened. Jack says, "She thinks I cheated on her." You ask, "Well, did you?" Jack says, "I'm not sure. Something strange happened."
This is what Jack proceeds to tell you:
"There is this woman in my apartment building who I barely know," He begins. "I've seen her in the hallway a few times, and we'd just sort of nodded our hellos. She is very normal looking, neither attractive nor unattractive. Last week, I came home from the bar very drunk, and -while I was getting my mail- I ran into her at the mailboxes. She was also intoxicated. Just to be neighborly, we decided to go to her place to have one more beer. But because we were drunk, the conversation was very loose and slightly flirtatious. And then this woman suddenly tells me she has a bizarre sexual quirk: she can only have an orgasm if a man watches her mastubate. This struck me as fascinating, so I started asking questions about why this was. And then -somehow- it just sort of happened. I never touched her and I never kissed her, but I ended up watching this woman masturbate. And then I went home and went to bed. And I told Jane about this a few days later, mostly because it was all so weird. But Jane went fucking insane when I told her this, and she angrily said our relationship was over. Now she wont even return my calls."
Whose side do you take, Jack's or Jane's?

I have posed this question to myriad people, and the reactions are all vaguely similar. Women almost always think Jane's rage is completely valid; men generally inquire about the availability of housing in Jack's hypothetical building. Women usually agree that this offense warrants a breakup, while many men think it merely warrants a tenure in the doghouse. But what's noteworthy is that -while almost everyone agrees that Jack did something wrong- everyone uses a staunchly different, weirdly personal argument to justify what makes it so bad. It raises innumerable questions. I mean, how different is this than watching porn? How different is this than getting a lap dance? Is this situation worse than if Jack had drunkenly kissed his neighbor? Would it make any difference if the neighbor had been behind a glass partition? Many people point to the "intimacy" of the exchange -but if that's the case, the conversation preceding the episode seems as troublesome as the masturbation itself. And if Jack honestly saw this encounter as "weird" (as opposed to "erotic"), shouldn't he be forgiven completely? Isn't he just being penalized for being curious?
This is why the "Jack & Jane" scenario is such a good hypothetical. The core question really isn't, "Whose side do you take?" The true question is, "Where, exactly, does cheating begin?"
I just watched a documentary on Cinemax called Love & Cheating, and it mainly consists of average couples talking about the complexity of their sex lives. The crux of the program asks if monogamy is still relevant, and the answer is (essentially) "maybe not". One of the statistics cited in Love & Cheating is that in the year 1900, the average life expectancy was forty-seven years and the average marriage lasted twelve years; in 2000, the average life expectancy was seventy-seven years, but the average marriage lasted only seven. To some "sexperts", this indicates that monogamy cant compete with the modern lifespan' perhaps we simply live too long to realistically anticipate staying with any one individual. And maybe this is true. Maybe it would be easier to remain faithful to your spouse if you both assumed you'd get typhoid before turning fifty. But this is reverse engineering; in fact, this kind of logic is probably why so many people have affairs (and why the modern marriage lasts only seven years). What this argument indicates is that it's mathematically unreasonable to be monogamous. And that, I think, is probably where cheating begins. It's not about physical contact or emotional intimacy; it begins the moment anyone decides that it's unreasonable to be sexually commited to one person. Once a man or woman comes to that conclusion, it doesn't matter what they do (or dont do). If they are a reasonable person -and if they truly think remaining monogamous is inherently unreasonable- you have to assume the only reason they're not sleeping with other people is because (a) they cant find anyone else to sleep with, or (b) they're afraid they'll get caught. And these are -without question- the two main hurdles that stop people from being unfaithful.
I recall drinking brandy with a friend who was in the early stages of dating an absolutely gorgeous nurse. She was a hardworking blonde who loved to throw back tequila shots, dance to Trick Daddy, and bake cookies on the weekend; we agreed that she was close to ideal. Yet my friend was certain that this romance was never going to work out, and I couldn't understand why. "What singular quality would this woman need to make this relationship a success?" I asked. He answered immediately: "The ability to be nine other women." This struck me as dangerously self-aware. My friend just didn't think it was reasonable to stay with any one person, regardless of her merit. When people cheat, it has almost nothing to do with who they're with and who they potentially want; it just had to do with they view their fidelity as a realistic way to exist. It is easy to be ethical when you're single, but much harder when you are not.
When I was in my early twenties, I figured something out: if you are a weird-looking dude (which I am) and you want to date exclusively beautiful women (which I did), the key is to pursue beautiful women who are already in relationships. Let's say you live in Omaha, and you meet a really hot single woman who is actively dating lots of different guys. In order to win her affection, you have to be more desirable that every other single guy in Omaha. It's you against everybody. However, let's say you meet a hot woman who is dating Kenneth, a hard-working Nebraskan haberdasher. This situation is way, way easier; now you merely have to be more desirable than Kenneth. It's you against him. However, what I've slowly come to realize is that I was not convincing these women to like me, which is what I thought at the time; I was merely convincing them that staying faithful to Kenneth (or any one person) was unreasonable. I wasn't seducing them in any real context. I was simply eroding their morality.
Well we all have our regrets, I suppose.
But here is the bottom line: motivation is everything. Wanting to cheat on someone and failing is no different than actually doing so; and the reason something happens is way more important than the action itself. This is why watching your neighbor masturbate is not necessarily a reason to break up, particularly if you were drunk and merely trying to get your mail. And if you disagree with this, you're just being unreasonable.'

-Chuck Klosterman

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:22:31 GMT

BG
10:51 hjahahahaha
10:51 okay topic of the night
10:51 Reality

demonboy1652
10:51 reality's what you choose to believe

BG
10:51 Can anything be considered True
10:51 Name one true thing

demonboy1652
10:52 me
10:52 from my point of view
10:52 and you, from yours

BG
10:52 But broken down to the smallest particles, the pieces that make up you and I cannot be differentiated from the world around us
10:52 We are one and the same
10:52 The only difference between us is perception

demonboy1652
10:52 thats if you choose to believe what your senses are telling you

BG
10:53 How can we not?

demonboy1652
10:53 and thats if you blend micro and macro entities into one
10:53 well you can choose to accept that the information sent to your brain by your senses is true

BG
10:54 But can we consciously choose to accept them as false?
10:55 Do we have a choice but to define the world according to our senses?

demonboy1652
10:55 you could choose to believe the world is a creation of your imagination, a very egocentric perspective

BG
10:55 Our senses are our only tools, the instruments of our reality. They are flawed and limited.
10:56 Unfortunately
10:56 They are also the basis of our reality
10:56 We can choose to believe what we want
10:56 but at the end of the day our reality, be it what it is, is defined by our senses

demonboy1652
10:56 youve got to give them the benefit of the doubt or youre going to have a very lonely existance

BG
10:57 well we have to assume that they've got something right
10:57 Think of it like this
10:57 Our senses form the basis of our reality
10:57 our reality is perception

demonboy1652
10:58 id say its safe to assume that there is some form of loose reality though, because even if what we perceive as the world is a hallucination there has to be something there perceiving it

BG
10:58 if we do not percieve it, if we cannot sense that it is there, we cannot prove that it continues to exist

demonboy1652
10:58 can we prove that anything exists?

BG
10:58 we can define the existence of objects based on our senses
10:58 we know that something has mass, that its there
10:59 which granted is different and seperate from existing

demonboy1652
10:59 but senses can be misleading and manipulative of our realities, as you and i both know from having done some crazy drugs

BG
10:59 so you have a point
10:59 absolutely
10:59 but they still define our reality because they're all we have to define it with

demonboy1652
10:59 so our reality is based on trust just as much if not more than perception

BG
10:59 you remember the old idiom, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

demonboy1652
11:00 what tree?

BG
11:00 exactly
11:00 The tree doesnt exist
11:00 to us at least
11:00 we all lead seperate realities
11:00 or we have to assume as much
11:00 because we can only prove that our own reality exists

demonboy1652
11:01 there was a student at harvard who for his final essay was posed the question "prove the chair youre sitting on exists".. all of the other students wrote pages and pages of theories and laws, but this one student simply wrote "what chair?" and walked out, and got an A

BG
11:01 exactly
11:02 the problem in this mode of thought
11:02 is that it assumes that nothing is independent of our reality
11:02 I argued with Nick Ferbert about this in class
11:02 If our reality is defined by our perception
11:03 and we can only prove what is tangible, and only loosely at that
11:03 than how can we know that anything is independent of our perception
11:03 How do we know that matter exists independent of us

demonboy1652
11:03 we dont, we never will

BG
11:05 exactly
11:05 we dont know
11:05 man exists in a vacuum of fallibility
11:05 incapable of percieving all sides

demonboy1652
11:05 but not for lack of want

BG
11:05 limited by what we can percieve we will never go beyond our own eyes
11:05 well put.

demonboy1652
11:07 which brings up the question, what happens to everyone else's universe when i die?

BG
11:08 You're assuming that everyone else has a universe
11:08 To you, the individual, you only know what you can percieve

demonboy1652
11:08 im assuming that because of my mental limits i believe there is a you

BG
11:08 Exactly
11:09 we trust every day that there are others out there experiencing what we are
11:09 The beauty of it is that we can never prove the existence of another mind once we can no longer perceive it.
11:10 Meaning that man, at its core, is the lonliest creature to ever walk the face of the earth

demonboy1652
11:11 youre assuming there are other creatures and that theres an earth

BG
11:12 I am, because I'm giving man the credit of the inanimate. Even I can't quite come to terms with the fact that things I can't sense may not exist. Which at any particular moment of solitude, could make me the only living thing in existence

demonboy1652
11:15 you bring fear into the equation
11:15 if we assume that nothing we think we perceive is correct, then we have to assume that emotion is in some form correct
11:15 therefore basic mental capacity

BG
11:17 but emotions are simply responses to environmental stimuli
11:17 meaning they too can be chalked up to perception, just a more intimate version
11:18 environmental stimuli or lack thereof

demonboy1652
11:18 so existance is a simple catch-22
11:18 environmental stimuli exist because we feel emotions triggered by them

BG
11:19 Pretty much

demonboy1652
11:19 well now that weve solved the mystery of existance, i think im goin to bed

Virtual Tour

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:58:08 GMT

Not all of these are my own pictures, but here are the inhabitants on my nano reef:

Corals:

^Green Star Polyps

^more Green Star Polyps, with Turquoise Mushroom Corals

^Brown Spotted Mushroom Coral colony

^Ricordea Yuma (Peach)

^various Zoanthids

Fish:

^Bi-Color Blenny

^Cherub Angel

^Ocellaris Clown (Not a Nemo.. Nemo's a Percula Clown)

Invertebrates

^Tulip Anemones

^Serpent Star

^Blue Hermit Crab

^Bumblebee Snail

^Skunk Cleaner Shrimp

^Peppermint Shrimp

^Emerald Crab

^Porcelain Crab

It's amazing how much life you can cram into a 30x12x12-inch glass box

Deep thinking with Brian Guay

Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:30:45 GMT

BG
12:31 lets get really drunk in the middle of the day for no reason
demonboy1652
12:32 thats paradoxical
12:32 drinking to get drunk is drinking for a purpose
BG
12:33 but we won't be drinking to get drunk
12:33 kind of like the side effects to prescription medicine
demonboy1652
12:33 ah
12:34 see, i will be be drinking to get drunk
12:34 hey yknow how your muse is TV?
12:34 mine is my reef tank, and last night i smoked that shit amanda gave me (by the way, its daaaaank), and found the meaning of life in it
BG
12:35 which is?
demonboy1652
12:35 finding purpose
12:35 it makes sense in an odd way
12:35 the purpose of living is to find a reason to live
BG
12:36 makes sense
12:36 Where the means are infinitely more important than the end result
demonboy1652
12:37 truth
12:37 everyone comes to a different and unique final summation
12:37 therefore, life is chaos in a certain sense
BG
12:38 who says that a final summation is necessary?
12:38 The problem with that philosophy is its intrinsicly hedonistic approach to life
12:39 To say that people constantly search for purpose, while completely true, forces a massive emphasis on the individual
12:39 meaning that everyone must take it upon themselves to find their own unique purpose, their own unbeaten path to prowl
12:41 Which also means that social mores and folkways that have been refined with the development of culture must be ignored and disregarded so that all paths are open to the individual
12:41 What happens if someones unique path involves child molestation?
12:41 Or murder?
demonboy1652
12:42 thats their path
BG
12:42 Promiscuity, lust, greed, gluttony, envy, every sin imaginable would be open to the world
12:42 exactly
12:42 their own individual path
demonboy1652
12:42 stating the obvious, but if all pathways must be optioned then anything goes
BG
12:43 And while I think I could perfectly function without being led by society, most people can't deal without routine, without guidelines to live their life by
12:43 hence Religion
demonboy1652
12:44 hence a lot of things
12:44 but i think you do need routine
12:44 i think you need your own routine
12:45 given its by your own design, but i think you do have ingrained routines that youd be disoriented without
BG
12:45 I do to, I think routine is important, but it needs to be your own
12:45 exactly, a routine of your own making
demonboy1652
12:45 for instance; your sleep patterns, your drugging, etc
BG
12:45 good example
demonboy1652
12:45 exactly
BG
12:46 the problem is that society, in order to function, forces the individual to behave in accordance with other members of that society
demonboy1652
12:46 conflicting life paths + arrogance
12:47 = conflict, among other things
BG
12:49 the problem lies in the unique aspects of the individula
12:50 society cannot function if all aspects of the individual are allowed
demonboy1652
12:50 people as a whole seek tribal relationships, but no one can fully accept someone who is different
12:51 in the sense that no "tribe" could ever be what any individual wants and needs it to be
BG
12:58 exactly, the human being, a social creature, is forced to both understand himself as an individual, where he will eventually realize his intrinsic uniqueness, but also forced to seek out others, knowing full well than any group situation will be a rought fit, if a fit at all
demonboy1652
1:01 yeah
BG
1:02 on a less intelligent subject
1:02 we need drugs

Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:20:08 GMT

Things I learned in Quebec:
-both wild boar and carribou are amazing
-it's possible to get lost in an elevator
-canadians as a whole are exponentially thinner than americans, and therefore the ratio of hotties to normal people is much smaller than here
-i can hold my breath for over a minute easy, maybe my lungs aren't as toasty as I thought they were (=
-new speed record in the beemer: 114 comin through the green mountains yesterday
-buddy "the golden retarded" (retriever) might come to live with us, as soon as cheryl is tired of him

Things I re-learned in Quebec:
-my mom is psychotic, although in thoroughly unpredicable ways; she bought me a really nice peace pipe and an ounce of native american ceremonial smoking herbs
-my grandmother can still way outdrink me. try more than a pitcher of sangria more.
-I do miss her, a lot

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:52:29 GMT

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:57:49 GMT

Ehem.... friends only bitches

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:32:19 GMT