You're viewing a partial stream (from 03/01/04 to 03/31/04), you may want to view the entire stream.
Week In Review
Week In Review
Short on time - so a short WIR. Oh, and hi Bobby.
Actual log file (name has been removed):
Tim: Have you been to my site?(snip)***: I've been thre before**: I thought it was boring**: sryTim: Hmm...I get that alot.Sometimes people are too honest.
The K is for Kontradiction
If you haven't hear the quote already:
Amazing. Why bother running ads? He's own sound bites do a better job. Well, I guess you have to spend the campaign money somehow.
Deviating from the normal 'boringness' of the WIR - played two games this week. Battlefield Vietnam and a Pandora Tomorow demo.
Battlefield Vietnam is pretty nice. Obviously a bit more current equipment (LAWs and SAWs) is provided, and I loved flying the chopper.
Splinter Cell - Pandora Tomorrow: Impressive demo. The movements (at least the movements of Fisher) are more fluid and realistic. And they showed off a bit by starting you on top of a moving train, then having you move up the car by working your way up while hanging on side of the car or the bottom of the car. I'm thinking multiplayer is gonna be fun too.
Seems Glenn is on his way to Iraq. It'll be nice to hear him reporting 'on location'. I mean, we need some bias - I'm tired of all the objective reporting that coming from Rather and Jennings.
So what else happened this week? Don't know - 'twas a blur. Snowed twice, probably a cumulative total of 8-10 inches. It's mostly gone now, but made driving a pain a couple of the days.
I remember what else I did. Went all the way to King of Prussia - now there's an interesting name for a city, if they were gonna name a city after the king of Prussia, then why not use his name - for a computer show. It's the same people who do the show in Allentown, and amazingly enough, I think the Allentown one is better.
Week In Review
It's A Bit Cold
No, I'm not talking about the room we had the puppet meeting in - although that was a bit nippy. I'm talking about the Iditarod. Yup, they're half way through. But of course you know that because you've been watching the coverage on ESPN 6, at least when you weren't watching NBC's coverage of the national curling competition. Mush, mush.
How'd That Get There?
Julia Roberts - no not that Julia Roberts - a 96 (yeah, that's ninety six) year old woman charged with position of crack, along with intent to sell it. Seems she was helping her son. Her 61 year old son. During one raid she hid the stuff in her fake leg. "How'd that get there?"
ABC, I assume trying to capitalize on the popularity of 'The Passion' ran a made for TV movie about Judas. It was of course titled, 'Judas'. The kid saw some of it and gave me the best line in the movie. The character of Jesus, speaking of turning the tables over in the temple said, "I lost my temper." Wow.
At least we know their dramatic programming is as accurate as their news division.
Speaking of ABC
I don't watch the news. There's a reason. Just took me 30 seconds to go from passive interest to disgusted frustration. Tuesday ABC did a spot on Kerry's tour de Florida. As he promised that this year their votes would count (like they didn't last time?) - I wondered why we weren't hearing any reminders of how some tried to defranchise the military personal from their vote. See that's why I don't watch the news.
More Bush attack ads are out - these actually sink so low as to repeat what Kerry said he would do if he's elected.
Here's a quote from my rebuttal to a comment made on Gabe's blog:
Anonymous 1: And yes, maybe we NEED to be reminded of it. But you forget it HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH WHILE HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY GIVING US 'STEADY LEADERSHIP' (that IS his election theme this time around no?)
Hmm...the ALL CAPS really made me consider your point. Really, they did. If this is really gonna hurt his campaing because it was his fault - why are you upset with them. Simple answer, people know it wasn't his fault. So do you.
See, they claim that it's Bush's fault - but they complain that it's not fair to use September 11th because they know no one really believes that.
They get upset when the Bush campagin states what Kerry has said he would do if elected because they know most people will reliaze how wrong that plan is.
If you want to know who's wrongly using Septemeber 11th - it's the people who are actually politicising it.
Yeah, I know, not the best week in review - not that there's much of a standard. Just was somehow busy the last two days. Spent yesterday sorting through the piles of stuff on my desk, and scrubbing a wall in the bathroom. Walpaper gule is hard to get off. And the TSP melted away some of the fuzzy on my slippers. Ah, life's not fair.
Unfortunalty Gabe didn't have the passion/anger/outrage/whatever that he needed to pen another 'moron magnet'. Maybe next week.
In Other News
Just rememberd - I heard that Kirk Cameron was on Scarbour country - he did the good persion test with Jon Voight. Whoud'a loved to see that. At least I can read it. Supposedly the interview was about 'The Passion'. Supposedly. Anyone see this one?
Week In Review
Wow. What a week. If you're normally bored with my 'Week In Reviews' (that would be members of my family, and close friends), this week will have a more personal slant. Of course it's been said that I'm boring, so don't expect much.
Saw this guy on Thursday - pretty interesting. Played like 10 different volleyball teams. Two of them were actually teams - they were school teams - the rest were just made up to play him. A couple of the teams were good. One team consisted of members of the football team. 35 football players playing volleyball at the same time. Should'a got a picture of that. And in case you haven't followed the link to the Beat Bob site - he's a one man team. And he didn't loose one game. The Gospel message was sorta weak, but still not what you'd expect to hear in a public school gym.
Seems like they have a candidate - and already the nasty Bush campaign has started airing outrageous, hate filled, attack ads.
Had some fun with the comment on Gabe's 'Marriage' post, but nothing like the 'Bush Ad' post. Gabe made sure the title would catch the eye. He's a regular 'Moron Magnet' - I may post his post and the comments (edited a bit for language) sometime, but until then you can see them at his blog. Warning: There is use of profanity. No, not by Chris.
Saturday a Yahoo! list was sent a virus. This list is a distribution only list - only the moderator can post, and the moderator didn't get the virus. How'd it happen? I'll splane.
Viruses 'harvest' addresses from the address books, files, etc. of the computers they infect. They then will send infected e-mail to the addresses they find. Here's the twist. If you got an e-mail from say, 'email@example.com', you probably wouldn't open it. I hope. So what should they use as the from address? Perhaps the address of the infected computer? Sure, but then it's easy to figure out where the viruses came from. Why not have some fun and use addresses that were harvested as the 'from' address.
Well, I recently explained to a list owner that because of the 'operation' of a virus, a virus could 'spoof' the address of list moderator and send itself to the list post address. Depending on how the list is set up the listserver might just check to see who the e-mail is 'from' and since it appears to be from the moderator - just send it out. That's exactly what happened.
Solution? For maximum protection against this, set up the list so even the list owner, or moderator, is moderated. That means that even though the e-mail appears to be from the moderator, the listserver will still send a copy back to the moderator asking if it should actually send out that message. It similar to the double-opt-in system that's standard for any legitimate e-mail list. That system (sending out a confirmation email to the address that requested subscription) is used for just this reason - to prevent people from 'spoofing' addresses and subscribing people who don't want to be subscribed.
Martha's Guide to Shoestring Decorating
To me the most interesting aspect of the Martha Stewart case is that I think of people being put in jail because they steal something, kill someone, sell drugs - not because you take part in unethical business practices. Or lie about taking part in unethical business practices. Or lie about not taking part in unethical business practices. I'm not saying someone who does that should be punished, it's that you just don't think of that as something that leads to jail. I wonder if they did? Maybe they'll run into Ken Lay.
When to a 'Bach' concert today - that's a concert where they play mostly songs written by someone with Bach as a last name. There were a few of them. Close to the end of the program they played 'Jesus Joy of Man's Desiring'. Funny thing - they pronounced every word in english - except for 'Jesus'. Sure maybe that's how your supposed to pronounce it - I just wonder.
The best part was when they showed artwork by a class of 5th graders that was inspired by the song. They're class assignment was to do a piece of 'abstract art' that reflected the song. Abstract art? Don't you think you could maybe get some 'concrete' ideas from the song?
Very cool. Why do I know about this? Wonder if they make a Tracer with one of them.
Here Them Bells?
[Note: Yeah! One from the bandwagon posts. I love it. BlogEasy sticks recent posts on their site, so when a current event post is made - it usually draws some comments. See Chris's post and the comments here. Below is the text of my comment (I quote the comment by 'Anonymous').]
First let's ignore the baseless accusations, 'Dude, homophobes have done more to "erode the foundation of our society" than any or all gays.' I'll believe that when I see some sort of legitimate data.
Anonymous: And who says one has to believe in God? That blows your whole theory right there.
Unless of course there is a God. I don't believe there's any obligation to not stand for what you believe (or even know) to be true. If you can question the foundation of my beliefs, then I can question yours. What if there *is* a God - that blows *your* whole theory right there.
You have to start somewhere, and if my 'core' believe is in a God (Who has a desire to be involved in mine and other's personal lives) then that obviously will effect (or should effect) the rest of my beliefs. If you're beliefs are based in a 'core' belief that there is no God - what if you're wrong?
Anonymous: Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by comparing it to intra-family sexual relationships. I think you know the difference.
How? How do I know the difference. I've grown up all my life believing that marriage is between one man and one woman - now you tell me it's just two loving people. What if someone else tells me it's between three loving people, or two loving siblings. Why shouldn't I believe that?
Quote from my blog (http://tim.timlytle.net):
"May I point out just one thing? Without any research I can give examples of times in history where it was acceptable for two loving family members to be married, and where it was acceptable for three loving people to be married. Can't remember anytime it was considered acceptable for two loving people of the same sex to be married. If we're going to redefine marriage, maybe we should start with the definitions that were once acceptable? To bad the advocates of same-sex marriage won't tolerate that. Maybe we should just forget what definitions are 'acceptable' and just go with the definition of the Person Who defined marriage in the first place."
Anonymous: Mormons believe in bigamy. Some Native American Tribes believe in using certain drugs for "religious experiences". Our government leaves them to their right. Does this mean religion will "cease" to be religion?
Actually, our government denies Mormons (who no longer practice polygamy) the 'right' to marry more than one person. But this does bring up an important point. Whether you believe same-sex marriage is wrong or right - it is against the law. And to marry same sex couples is to break the law. That's why the mayor of that town in New York is now facing criminal charges. You want to change the law? Go right ahead - they already took it to a vote in California, and the majority said 'no'. And as for rights - marriage isn't a right - it's a privilege. One reserved by our government for two people of different genders. If marriage was a right I could just go out, find a girl, and say, "Marry me." And she'd have to. After all, it's my right. Do I even need a girl? I should be able to get married all by myself. Marriage is a right.
Anonymous: The world is a changing place and God, in His infinite wisdom, allows us to adapt and grow. I would suggest you try it.
God's 'infinite wisdom' would by definition be greater than ours. It would also be, by definition, complete. God's wisdom would not change - if it is infinite. So God's not growing - but we are - God can't grow, because He's complete. He may allow us to 'adapt and grow' - but there's only one of two directions we would be going. It's either closer to His perfection, or farther from it. Wouldn't it be wise to know which direction we were going?
Just Need a Big Wall
This is for you, Bobby.
That'd be nice for a LAN party.
Week In Review
Al Jazeera Reviews Gibson's Movie
Al Jazeera calls Gibson's movie anti-semitic.
It just hurts to think about that. Okay, so they just were posting a Reuters story, but it makes a point. The media won't report real anti-semitism, but they'll report what could 'possibly encourage anti-semitism'. When we hear reports of anti-semitism now, who'll get the blame? Why those crazy Christian radicals. [Note: I fully understand that at times in history the Catholic Church has persecuted Jews; however, that is not reflective of true Christianity, or belief in the actually historical existence and crucifixion of Christ. Yes, in the past there has been so called Christians that practiced anti-semitism, but I don't think that's the main source today.]
They will find the least bit of evidence of anti-semitism in 'Christian' circles, yet they will ignore the anti-semitism that exists as common place around the world. Then when that real anti-semitism (and I might add anti-Christianism) is engaged in the places where it is the most active, radical, physical and dangerous these active passivists will defend those that practice it, and condemn those that actively engage it.
They call those that engage it intolerant, forgetting that it was the great tolerance of Christians that allowed them the position and the power to do so.
You want anti-semitism. Here's anti-semitism.
Passion: Partial Review
I mentioned this movie in another post and above, so what do I think about it. First, some general thoughts:
It is a catholic movie. It was made by a avid catholic, starring an avid catholic. Am I surprised that some people are saying they didn't feel they could 'connect' with the character 'Christ', but they connected with the character 'Mary'? Not a bit.
Would it be wise to view this as the actual story of the crucifixion? Nope. Neither should you view 'The 10 Commandments' as the actual story of Exodus. The real story is in the Bible. This is a person's interpretation of that real - true, authentic, accurate - story.
It's interesting to see the media's reaction to the film. Examples would be the radical statements about the movie made by CBS's Andy Rooney. It's also interesting to see a movie made outside of Hollywood be in the same category - when comparing the opening day sales - with 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Matrix' trilogy.
I can't really comment on the accuracy - haven't seen it. Gibson's been quoted in different places about what he used as his source material. One quote makes it seem he relied heavily on extra-biblical visions of a nun, in another quote he seems to dismiss this. Jim Caviezel mentioned that he made it clear he wanted this closely follow the Bible account.
What do I say about the movie? Nothing - and for two reasons. One, I haven't seen it. I can just tell you what I've heard. Two, I haven't talked with the Person it's about enough yet. I wonder, in all the reviews about this movie - Christian or Secular, Positive or Negative, Ecumenical or Fundamental - how many have asked Him what He thinks.
Just a note: whatever you think about the movie - don't miss the opportunities it may open. Saw a google ad for this site when doing a 'Passion' related search.
It's all about redefining marriage. Why not just have it be a union of two loving people. 'Course then why shouldn't we let others redefine it. Maybe two loving family members? Maybe three loving people? When same-sex marriage advocates are asked these questions their response is rather interesting. It's something to the effect of, 'We're not talking about something strange, just two loving people.'
May I point out just one thing? Without any research I can give examples of times in history where it was acceptable for two loving family members to be married, and where it was acceptable for three loving people to be married. Can't remember anytime it was considered acceptable for two loving people of the same sex to be married. If we're going to redefine marriage, maybe we should start with the definitions that were once acceptable? To bad the advocates of same-sex marriage won't tolerate that. Maybe we should just forget what definitions are 'acceptable' and just go with the definition of the Person Who defined marriage in the first place.
Clear Channel Stern Warning
You may haver heard about Clear Channel pulling Howard Stern on the 6 (yes that many) of their stations he was on. That horrible Clear Channel - finally cleaning up their act. Well, ignore what you think about freedom of speech and how much the government should legislate it - here's something you probably didn't hear. Howard Stern ain't syndicated by Clear Channel - it's Vaicom. Yup, the people who own MTV and CBS. Ya'd think they'd learn a bit.
Just Plain Wrong
I don't know what to say about this.
"Clapp grabbed his leg back and went home and called 911."
Would this Confuse Solomon?
Here's the story: A couple decides to have children - there's just one problem - they're both women. 'Course they decide that shouldn't stop them so one donated the necessary biology - they other carries the child. Don't worry about the 'father' - not important. So we got a 'couple' and we've got kids - twins in fact - from what we've been hearing the past few weeks, that's all we need. Just a loving family. Normal marriages have been failing - it's time to give same-sex marriage a chance.
But that about this? The 'couple' finds they weren't really meant for each other (should have asked me first - I could'a told them that) . What happens to the kids? Who's their mother? (Remember - don't worry about the 'father' - they're not important.) This gotta be really great for the kids. Sure, growing up in a broken family where you spend the weeks with mom and the weekends with dad is bad enough. Having to figure out why you have two moms while the other kids have only one (and most even have a dad) is worse. But growing up spending weekdays with mom and weekends with your other mom - yeah, that's not gonna have a negative effect on the kids. Gimme a break.
On a positive note, do I smell a 'Parent Trap' sequel?
And just think - what would would Solomon have said? Maybe, "Give me the kids - cut them in half." Not that I'm not tolerant or anything.