"Daft"?!?!
Source: JB Hi-Fi Catalogue
1 month ago
"Daft"?!?!
Source: JB Hi-Fi Catalogue
A long and wordy essay regarding something that I don't care about
On
Thursday, November 13, 2008
View Comments
There's been quite the sensation over this thread here:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=111777031
(Note to alpha: It's an Integra!)
Just to warn you, its rather long winded and such. I'll leave you to make your own judgments about that.
However I'm not here to talk about that thread. I'm here to examine the responses that this lady has posted on her profile:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=389063875&blogID=446524813
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=389063875&blogID=447529067
Yes, she probably does have a right to react to all the hubbub regarding her, ahem, photoshoot, but surprisingly her response actually ticked me off. I guess I'm all riled up because that response to me just smelt like it was full of lies.
For one, if you genuinely do not care about something, then don't write up three rather long blog posts about it while insisting that you "DON'T CARE" (caps included) and are "happy and secure" several times over these posts. The simple fact is if you really didn't care, you wouldn't go to the trouble of responding at all.
Also, playing the guilt card is low. Yes, okay, its not exactly okay to bag someone out on the basis of their looks, but going 'what if I wasn't so strong' etc etc just makes you sound like an ass, trying to brag about how much you don't care and how strong you are, while also attempting to guilt people into no longer bagging you out.
Seriously. For frack's sake, if you're so on edge that the comments that random people on the Internet make on photos that you posted publicly on MySpace might just tip you 'over the edge', then don't post bloody photos on the Internet then. I've been through pretty crappy times too - we all bloody have - but if your self esteem lies on the judgement of forum guys then you need a serious reality adjustment.
Which brings me to my next point: posting your photos online. When you post photos online, you do so with an assumption that somewhere, someone may take notice of those photos and decide that they're interesting enough (in both positive and negative ways) to draw attention to. I'm not justifying the attention, mind you, but its a reality that everyone really should come to terms with.
Think of the Internet as this big crowd of people in this massive space: anything posted online is equivalent to throwing it onto the ground in this space. And occasionally, someone may spot something interesting amongst that mess and tap the person next to them to give them a peek. And so on. Perhaps you may be slaughtered: or maybe you just might become the next big meme?
So the gist of it is this: If you post photos on the Internet publicly, assume that there is a risk that you will attract attention - of either kind. If you really do care or are that insecure, then don't post photos. And if you really don't care, then don't post wordy posts about how much you don't care - that's hypocrisy.
Oh, and cut the bloody speeches about how life is lovely and beautiful and we should all dance in the fields under the glowering sun while rainbows shoot across the blue sky and butterflies hum to the tune of Stevie Wonder's "What a Beautiful World". I'm not being bitter, but I'm getting tired of this fast - imagine getting whacked over the head repeatedly by someone insisting that life sucks and you should be crying because children are starving in Africa.
This is exactly like that, except the inverse.
My point is, stop telling people how wonderful and terrible stuff is and let us make our own minds up. Be happy because you are, not because someone insists that you should be. And if you're not happy, then find out why and get working on that! Pretending to be happy because you should be is stupid, and denying that people should feel sad is ignorant and careless.
Feel what you are.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=111777031
(Note to alpha: It's an Integra!)
Just to warn you, its rather long winded and such. I'll leave you to make your own judgments about that.
However I'm not here to talk about that thread. I'm here to examine the responses that this lady has posted on her profile:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=389063875&blogID=446524813
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=389063875&blogID=447529067
Yes, she probably does have a right to react to all the hubbub regarding her, ahem, photoshoot, but surprisingly her response actually ticked me off. I guess I'm all riled up because that response to me just smelt like it was full of lies.
For one, if you genuinely do not care about something, then don't write up three rather long blog posts about it while insisting that you "DON'T CARE" (caps included) and are "happy and secure" several times over these posts. The simple fact is if you really didn't care, you wouldn't go to the trouble of responding at all.
Also, playing the guilt card is low. Yes, okay, its not exactly okay to bag someone out on the basis of their looks, but going 'what if I wasn't so strong' etc etc just makes you sound like an ass, trying to brag about how much you don't care and how strong you are, while also attempting to guilt people into no longer bagging you out.
Seriously. For frack's sake, if you're so on edge that the comments that random people on the Internet make on photos that you posted publicly on MySpace might just tip you 'over the edge', then don't post bloody photos on the Internet then. I've been through pretty crappy times too - we all bloody have - but if your self esteem lies on the judgement of forum guys then you need a serious reality adjustment.
Which brings me to my next point: posting your photos online. When you post photos online, you do so with an assumption that somewhere, someone may take notice of those photos and decide that they're interesting enough (in both positive and negative ways) to draw attention to. I'm not justifying the attention, mind you, but its a reality that everyone really should come to terms with.
Think of the Internet as this big crowd of people in this massive space: anything posted online is equivalent to throwing it onto the ground in this space. And occasionally, someone may spot something interesting amongst that mess and tap the person next to them to give them a peek. And so on. Perhaps you may be slaughtered: or maybe you just might become the next big meme?
So the gist of it is this: If you post photos on the Internet publicly, assume that there is a risk that you will attract attention - of either kind. If you really do care or are that insecure, then don't post photos. And if you really don't care, then don't post wordy posts about how much you don't care - that's hypocrisy.
Oh, and cut the bloody speeches about how life is lovely and beautiful and we should all dance in the fields under the glowering sun while rainbows shoot across the blue sky and butterflies hum to the tune of Stevie Wonder's "What a Beautiful World". I'm not being bitter, but I'm getting tired of this fast - imagine getting whacked over the head repeatedly by someone insisting that life sucks and you should be crying because children are starving in Africa.
This is exactly like that, except the inverse.
My point is, stop telling people how wonderful and terrible stuff is and let us make our own minds up. Be happy because you are, not because someone insists that you should be. And if you're not happy, then find out why and get working on that! Pretending to be happy because you should be is stupid, and denying that people should feel sad is ignorant and careless.
Feel what you are.
Don't worry.
Fifi loves you.
And for those who prefer other means of happiness, here are some leaked videos and pictures of interesting things.
They're probably, like, totally fake though.
Fifi loves you.
And for those who prefer other means of happiness, here are some leaked videos and pictures of interesting things.
They're probably, like, totally fake though.
Sylverin says...
Kbabslive would like to personally congratulation Barack Obama. He should be proud of his monumental achievement, doing what African-Americans everywhere have only dreamed of for the last few decades. It takes courage, intelligence and integrity to compete in what most would say is a white-man's world, and to excel at it leads me to believe that the future of the United States of America is not as bleak as once thought.
But anything has to be better than Sarah "Africa is a country" Palin. I could not in good conscience vote for a Prime Minister or President (vice or otherwise) if they were that ignorant. Computer illiterate, I could handle because not everyone is brought up with a computer in the house. However, forgetting (or just plain not learning) that Africa is a continent with 53 independent and sovereign countries, then actually saying it?
*Sigh*
I am glad that the spectacle of the Presidential Elections is over though, it was beginning to drag on for too long, like the bad joke carried too far. I am looking forward to seeing some fresh thinking coming from the White House in the next few years, as well as how the American public will react to his pulling of the strings.
Already I'm disappointed that some minorities have jumped on the assassination band wagon. Interestingly enough, I understand that where there is difference, there is misunderstanding, and there is fear. I can only hope that we don't see this bright spark go out too soon.
Sylverin
What stock photo models do while you're not paying attention
On
Thursday, November 06, 2008
View Comments
I know this totally breaks our usual posting schedule (no frequent updates, ever!) but this totally deserves it.
Yep, a webcam box. No, not my webcam. But perhaps we should look closer at this box...
"Hi Dad! Is your business trip going well? I got this really awesome gift waiting for you! Please come back soon, we miss you!"
...y'know what? You guys can caption this one yourselves.
Yep, a webcam box. No, not my webcam. But perhaps we should look closer at this box...
"Hi Dad! Is your business trip going well? I got this really awesome gift waiting for you! Please come back soon, we miss you!"
...y'know what? You guys can caption this one yourselves.
For the good part of a year now, I've been using a pair of Senheisser CX300s as my main earphones, for the noisy daily commute between home and... well, not home.
Yeah, they're in-ear earphones. When I first picked them up I was pretty impressed with their sound quality, a definite step up from the earbuds I was using before. After a while though I got used to them, and then they seemed rather ordinary. And then I switched back.
Whoah. After accidentally leaving my main mp3 player and CX300 phones at a location other than home, I was forced to switch back to my old Philips earphones. They didn't suck by any means but... they sucked. I listen to mostly rock music which does have a noticeable amount of instrumental detail with the right earbuds, but all that detail I had discovered with the CX300s was totally lost when I used the Philips.
And therein lies my final motivation to actually write what I have believed all along - folks, if you're going to get an mp3 player, please, please invest in a set of decent earphones! I fail to see the logic in spending hundreds of dollars on an mp3 player yet refusing to spend less than half of that to get earphones that actually do the mp3 player and your music justice.
Especially iPods. (No bias, seriously!)
But really, all mp3 players are privy to this. If you don't believe me, look at the ever-shrinking list of accessories that come with mp3 players - they used to give us AC chargers! Nowadays I can confidently state that pretty much any mp3 player that you can purchase comes with the following components:
- MP3 Player
- Earphones
- USB Cable
Trust me, if they can save a few dollars on those last three components, they will.
Anyway, back to earphones. The foremost reason why there was such a massive difference in instrumental detail between the in-ear earphones and the standard ear buds came down largely to the different designs: while ear buds sit outside of the ear canal, in-ear earphones do as they say and are designed to be inserted into the ear canal. Not too deeply, mind you, but you do have to get used to it.
The additional sound isolation also means that you don't have to play your music as loud as you would have to with standard ear buds, since that music no longer has to compete with outside noises, so you're less likely to hit the ceiling limits of your mp3 player and subsequently experience ugly and very-bad-for-your-hearing channel distortion - especially for the treble channels.
In short, in-ear earphones enhance your music while being better for your hearing. So why use earbuds at all?
Well, it still comes down to personal preference. I wouldn't be surprised if many people were turned off by the concept of jamming anything into their ears, let alone something which pumps sound directly into them. Also since in-ears are coupled directly to your ear canal, you will hear every noise transmitted down that wire... and not just electronically. If the wires rub along your clothing then you will hear a distinct and annoying rustling noise, which makes in-ears probably not so ideal for joggers or people who almost-miss trains often.
You will eventually get used to in-ears though, and the rustling only happens if you move around a lot. And I'm sure that we aren't all joggers.
So please, if your music doesn't compose entirely of music whose main instruments are the 'umph' and 'tish' of a synthesizer (which, unfortunately these days, isn't exactly unlikely), invest in a decent pair of earphones, specifically in-ear earphones. You'll like your music more, and you'll still be able to hear it to in twenty years time! I paid $70 for my CX300s, and after hearing how they compare I'd be more than willing to pay more for a good set of earphones.
If you don't want to spend too much, then at the very least go for the Creative EP-630s, because even at $40 I know they sound much better than bundled ear buds.
They even come in white. Especially handy for those of us who enjoy the thrill and excitement of a mugging.
Yeah, they're in-ear earphones. When I first picked them up I was pretty impressed with their sound quality, a definite step up from the earbuds I was using before. After a while though I got used to them, and then they seemed rather ordinary. And then I switched back.
Whoah. After accidentally leaving my main mp3 player and CX300 phones at a location other than home, I was forced to switch back to my old Philips earphones. They didn't suck by any means but... they sucked. I listen to mostly rock music which does have a noticeable amount of instrumental detail with the right earbuds, but all that detail I had discovered with the CX300s was totally lost when I used the Philips.
And therein lies my final motivation to actually write what I have believed all along - folks, if you're going to get an mp3 player, please, please invest in a set of decent earphones! I fail to see the logic in spending hundreds of dollars on an mp3 player yet refusing to spend less than half of that to get earphones that actually do the mp3 player and your music justice.
Especially iPods. (No bias, seriously!)
But really, all mp3 players are privy to this. If you don't believe me, look at the ever-shrinking list of accessories that come with mp3 players - they used to give us AC chargers! Nowadays I can confidently state that pretty much any mp3 player that you can purchase comes with the following components:
- MP3 Player
- Earphones
- USB Cable
Trust me, if they can save a few dollars on those last three components, they will.
Anyway, back to earphones. The foremost reason why there was such a massive difference in instrumental detail between the in-ear earphones and the standard ear buds came down largely to the different designs: while ear buds sit outside of the ear canal, in-ear earphones do as they say and are designed to be inserted into the ear canal. Not too deeply, mind you, but you do have to get used to it.
The additional sound isolation also means that you don't have to play your music as loud as you would have to with standard ear buds, since that music no longer has to compete with outside noises, so you're less likely to hit the ceiling limits of your mp3 player and subsequently experience ugly and very-bad-for-your-hearing channel distortion - especially for the treble channels.
In short, in-ear earphones enhance your music while being better for your hearing. So why use earbuds at all?
Well, it still comes down to personal preference. I wouldn't be surprised if many people were turned off by the concept of jamming anything into their ears, let alone something which pumps sound directly into them. Also since in-ears are coupled directly to your ear canal, you will hear every noise transmitted down that wire... and not just electronically. If the wires rub along your clothing then you will hear a distinct and annoying rustling noise, which makes in-ears probably not so ideal for joggers or people who almost-miss trains often.
You will eventually get used to in-ears though, and the rustling only happens if you move around a lot. And I'm sure that we aren't all joggers.
So please, if your music doesn't compose entirely of music whose main instruments are the 'umph' and 'tish' of a synthesizer (which, unfortunately these days, isn't exactly unlikely), invest in a decent pair of earphones, specifically in-ear earphones. You'll like your music more, and you'll still be able to hear it to in twenty years time! I paid $70 for my CX300s, and after hearing how they compare I'd be more than willing to pay more for a good set of earphones.
If you don't want to spend too much, then at the very least go for the Creative EP-630s, because even at $40 I know they sound much better than bundled ear buds.
They even come in white. Especially handy for those of us who enjoy the thrill and excitement of a mugging.