HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 26 Next »

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Fernando Poo
Gender: Male
Hometown: Fernando Poo
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 74,119

About Me

pesca-pescetarian

Journal Archives

I dont tend to PM people out of the blue. It feels invasive.

Some people here even seem to think it's unacceptable for certain people to even repsond to their public posts, ive noticed- like they've got these little preprepared lists of who is "allowed" to talk to them or not. It's weird. I mean, it's a message board. There is no list of "you can respond to what i say -- but you can't" i mean, what the everloving fuck is up with that?



Obviously that's over the top and probably indicative of some deep seated... Something, but in the interest of not stepping on toes i just dont PM people without having a good prior relationship; or checking in with them first.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Oct 10, 2015, 08:28 PM (1 replies)

It was a few years ago. I was on MIRT at the time, so I got to ban him at least once.

You motivated me to hunt it down, because it was around Christmas and I remember writing something about it called "I banned Ken Ham for Christmas" (this is what those memory cells are doing, which should be being used to remember to buy dog food. Sorry, pooch )

I posted it in meta, but i can still find it in my journal! Hmmm.

Here it is, from Dec. of 2012:



I think I have a new Christmas song

I banned Ken Ham for Christmas
I sent him his MIRT PPR
I banned Ken Ham for Christmas
I banned him, he wont get too far

Our Christmas feast was lacking
Our Pizza was looking quite bare
It needed some old time troll whacking
Some christmas Ham for MIRT to share

He wanted to give us the good news
How dinos and man got along
But I banned Ken Ham for Christmas
I called his shit silly and wrong.



Robert Hunter, i aint. Oh well, merry xmas everyone!


Edited to add: IIRC it was commentary (translation: open mockery) about this book which drew his ire or ired his drew or whatever.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Sep 29, 2015, 05:12 AM (4 replies)

"Big deal. I used my dick to solve Fermat's last theorem"

"and I used my nuts to build a tiny model of the Eiffel Tower out of toothpicks"
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:52 PM (5 replies)

I'm not a HRC supporter, but I'll give her credit where it's due. She apparently gave a good answer

to the question, more or less, in Iowa on Monday.

Unfortunately there seems to be no transcript or video of the Q&A session, but it appears from reports that she committed to the principle of allowing states to make their own determinations on recreational marijuana legalization.

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/643548967972683776

There was earlier feedback from a fundraiser in Portland where several representatives of the cannabis industry asked her about banking laws and again she offered assurances that she felt the situation needed addressing.

From the oregonian:

Leah Maurer, who worked on the marijuana legalization campaign last year that her husband Travis helped put together, said the Democratic presidential candidate spoke sympathetically about the banking problems faced by legal marijuana businesses. Federal rules now discourage banks from doing business with cannabis firms, hindering their operations and forcing them to keep large sums of cash on hand.

"It was very brief but when she said that there was big applause," said Maurer, adding that "just the fact that she said the word cannabis in a positive light was huge to me."


http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/08/hillary_clintons_portland_fund.html


I'm gonna give the candidates credit when they do the right thing, or try to.

it has not escaped my notice, however, that these exchanges seem to only happen when there are no cameras running.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Sep 16, 2015, 05:12 PM (0 replies)

Yeah, and 10 years ago the beltway waterheads were demanding our party court "values voters"

That's how you get the craptastic litany of shame, on things like the question of marriage equality.

Unfortunately, that conventional wisdom was bad then--- but it is ATROCIOUS, now. Know who our party should be courting?



MILLENNIALS.

Who , by and large, have "talks endlessly about jesus" pretty far down their list of priorities for a politician.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Sep 13, 2015, 05:29 PM (0 replies)

YOU KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE. LIKE JOHN CARPENTER'S "THE THING"

"Jesus was a carpenter, you know that? And you know what Jesus said about terrorism? He said you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. It's right there in the Bible, you can look it up! Facts. Who needs facts? I don't want a President who can win at trivial pursuit, I want a president who can win at Hungry Hungry Hippos. And let me tell you, this Momma Grizzly is HUNGRY. Get my drift? .... wait, what? They froze the thing? Like the blob. Shucks. Even better. Even better."



One small nit to pick with the op- you can't "lose it" if you never had it to begin with.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Sep 9, 2015, 10:34 PM (1 replies)

Indeed to all you say.

Probably someone, somewhere, actually has a fetish that involves putting the toothpaste back in the tube. And now, thanks to the internet, they can find their community.

But you've given me the opportunity to repost the calendar, which is good, because the old link wasn't working and I need it in my journal to keep handy.. although I really should update it to, say, 2016.



Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:50 PM (1 replies)

Verse #1: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Sep 1, 2015, 11:15 PM (0 replies)

No, I'm not "sure", LOL. However, I have yet to see a mathematically consistent, coherent

"Theory" of space-time which posits anything like a "center" which is located somewhere within, again, our 4 dimensional spacetime itself.

Now, extrapolating the old "flatland sphere" idea, if spacetime were curved - and closed- in such a way that the universe was a sphere in a higher mathematical dimension, then yes there would be a "center" which nevertheless existed in a higher mathematical dimension outside of our spacetime, much as the core of the earth is nowhere on its surface--

But that said, observational analyses to date have all indicated that spacetime is neither curved in on itself (spherical) NOR outward (saddle-shaped) but rather, "flat" at largest scales, albeit again in 4 dimensions.

Also if one steps outside of "time" (as much as is mentally possible) and accepts current big bang/hyperinflation theory, it is possible I suppose to argue that a "center" (if not "the" center) sits at the big bang, both in space and time- but the big bang occurred everywhere, so again, if you're talking now the center is, like the leftover 3 degree echo of the big bang, everywhere.



Positing a "center" somewhere in our own, current spacetime as it stands now, runs into all sorts of logical problems, not the least of which is that it implies an "edge" or boundary, and then what's beyond that?

(one of the appealing factors of the spacetime-curved-into-a-higher-dimension-sphere idea is, of course, that it avoids that problem by saying if you go far enough in one direction, you end up coming back from the other way, sort of like flying off the right side of the screen in Asteroids and coming back in in the left.



But unfortunately, again, observations don't seem to indicate that one is true)

Personally, my own leanings are towards something like the infinite self-propagating eternal inflationary theory of Guth and Linde (of which our own Universe would be a tiny bubble), and I believe everything is mind-bendingly infinite in all directions and across all scales, not just multiverses but an infinite number of multiverses and beyond that types of multiverses, and so on. And as mathematicians know, asking what the "center" of infinity (much less infinite infinities) is, is a meaningless question.


...also, adding a brief detour out of science and math and into philosophy- as the solipsism jokes upthread allude to, from a purely experiential/zen/existential standpoint for me, the universe DOES have a center, and yes, I'm sitting at it right now. Meaning, as much as my own experience is concerned, from the moment I first became conscious, everything that has ever taken place, from my perspective, has happened with me smack dab at the center. Wow! I must be important! Or something. I don't say this because I have a huge ego (although I do) but rather because If I'm being rigorous from an experiential viewpoint, well, the ONLY experiential viewpoint I have or will ever have, as far as I know, is mine. The only vote that matters, so to speak.

And as such the whole fuckin' shebang revolves around (or to some extent, takes place inside) my own head. So as for a "center", there's that, I guess.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:43 AM (4 replies)

Porn isnt protected speech? There's a 10 Billion dollar a year industry that disagrees.

And SCOTUS "standards" on the matter are a joke- starting with Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" all the way up to the so-called standard in use today, the "community standards" definition of "obscenity".

"Community standards" for obscenity are a joke because it is basically impossible to argue, in our 21st century interconnected media world, that there is any sort of definable "community" who would find consenting adult sex acts "obscene" in such a way that it could be drawn broadly enough to criminalize the speech of, say, youporn or the like. Or in other words, for every community that doesnt like it, there is another that DOES.

And short of culture war reprobates like Rick Santorum, no one on either side of the aisle is remotely interested in trying.

Simply put, if the SCOTUS had been even the slightest bit interested in putting the kabosh on pornography, they wouldnt have overturned Clinton's online decency law (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). Instead, They did, and now that horse is long out of the barn.

And a wise decision, as well- because leaving aside the moral panic "culture in crisis" concerns, it is well nigh impossible to come up with a consistent and enforceable universal standard of "obscenity" in a pluralistic, interconnected, 21st century society. What is "obscene" to some people- oral sex, gay sex, al yankovik getting freaky with bubble wrap- is a wholesome saturday night's entertainment to others.

And so it is with so-called "hate speech". What is hate speech to one person or group, is not to another. The government not only should not be in the business of making objective determinations about the content of speech, it simply can't. Not rationally, not consistently. Not without taking a position that one set of beliefs, belonging to one group, is the "right" one, to the exclusion of the view of others.

Bottom line, though, the principle of free expression is far more important than silencing even the most obnoxius voices among us.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:47 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 26 Next »