I am sure it will come as no surprise to any unbiased person that there never was any Jaariya in the case which has been making the headlines for this past few months. The secularists and hypocrites fabricated this story then promoted it in order to attack Islam and sadly many people fell for their lies. The 17 year old woman in question is in fact married and not a concubine or sex slaves as the liars claimed and Islamically there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

The story was broken (fabricated?) by Hilath Rasheed on his blog. It is quite sad that anyone would believe what this man says in relation to Islam as he is always looking for ways to attack the religion, doing this under the guise of attacking “extremism”. Hopefully those who where eager to believe this will learn a lesson and will take in to account the words of Allah:

O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.
Surah AL-HUJRAAT 49:06

But of course there are always those who are not really interested in the truth of the matter but rather how the matter can further their own agendas. This was seen amongst some of those who took up this story and spread it. Azima Shukoor used this issue to score political points at a rally and this was when it became public so to speak.

Of course the munafiq Saleem was not going to let the issue slip and so his anti Islamic commission pushed it and claimed that they had proof that there was in fact a Jarriya. This man will stop at nothing in his assault on Islam and again he has been shown to have lied in this crusade – as there was no Jaariya to begin with then their claim that they have proof of one cannot be anything other than a lie. How can such a commission have any credibility?

What is most sad however is that a young pregnant woman and her family have been put through a lot of stress and their address has even been made public by the secularist media. Those who claimed to be doing this for the girl in question don’t give a damn about her. They used her and this issue to attack Islam and the Islamic marriage.

Of course rather than admit they where wrong many of these people are again on the offensive saying marriage to a 17 year old girl is child abuse. What nonsense. Do these people believe the Prophet (SAW) and most of the Sahaba where “child abusers”? Of course most of them can’t and won’t answer this as it will show them as hypocrites. But what about the vast majority of countries in the world which have an age of consent under 18? Does Britain legalise child abuse? The USA? France? Australia? etc etc.

The hypocrites will never be happy with Islam and they will always attack it because they hate the truth. But no matter what they do Allah will protect this religion:

They wish to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will not agree except that He will perfect His light, even though the disbelievers detest it.
Surah At Tawba 9:32

From MSN:

Vatican no fan of ‘deviant’ Twilight

“The Vatican has spoken out against the new Twilight movie that is sweeping the globe, slamming it as a deviant moral vacuum.  Twilight Saga: New Moon, starring Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, has had sensational box office takings since opening in France and Spain ahead of its US release on Friday.
Monsignor Franco Perazzolo, of the Pontifical Council of Culture, said: “Men and women are transformed with horrible masks and it is once again that age-old trick or ideal formula of using extremes to make an impact at the box office.”
Vampires are not traditionally the creatures of God, and their popularity among the young disturbs the Catholic Church. Perazzolo continued: “This film is nothing more than a moral vacuum with a deviant message and as such should be of concern.”

For the rest of this article, click here.
I would like to post the original review by Msgr. Perazzolo when I can get it.

Q: Why are homophobic attitudes so prevalent among Christians?

A: No offense to anyone, but authentic Christianity considers homosexual practices to be gravely sinful, seriously disordered, and harmful to both the homosexual and to society.

This is not homophobic. It is simply proper discernment, being able to tell the difference between true diversity (which is perfectly acceptable) and grave depravity (which most certainly is not).

Steeped in their essentially narcissistic behavior, gays continue to crave official acceptance and approval, while Christians (and most others) find the open and flagrant practice of homosexuality naturally repugnant. Typically recoiling against it, in disgust.

It’s only natural.

Having dealt with homosexuality in various world cultures for the last 2000 years, the Catholic Church actually understands the true scope of this problem pretty well.

According to the Vatican:

“It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well.”

More on this matter here:

http://douglawrence.wordpress.com/homosexuality/

Well, if you can show me anyone with a better balance of Mad-As-Owt and Musical Genius I will eat my arse. Deviant & Naive Ted releases a blinder on Alphabetset, but don’t take my word for it.

Read this review from  EIGHTBALL.IE

“Plug-ins, VSTs, MIDI-controllers, laptops.  All lovely little toys that make

 modern music-making a whole heap easier and cleaner, but it ain’t worth squat
 unless the person making the music has something important to say in the first
 place. Thus, it’s refreshing to see someone take the bumpier road towards composition
 these days, not content to let a computer do all the hard work.  Enter Deviant/Naive Ted,
 one of this soil’s truest veterans of all things turntable and scratch related, 
who drops his debut 7” this November on Dublin’s mighty Alphabet Set label. 
 Relying on a stack of obscure prog and jazz records, some battered turntables and 
a good ol’ fashioned warped imagination, Deviant may just have churned out the most 
interesting leftfield hiphop record this year. And that’s not restricted to Ireland.
 While current trends in the field have producers whacking off to their J-Dilla shrines 
and then banging out anonymous off-time beats, this release has intense dedication and 
individual eccentricity slapped all over it. A bit like the old tales told by the wandering 
blues-man, only strapped with a Vestax deck instead of a trusty ol’ six string. 
 There’s a definite message being put across, it’s just that its delivered through the 
cut-up samples and words of his heroes from yesterday and beyond.  This 200 word-limit
 review isn’t going to do it enough justice, but copping the wax and actually listening to it will.  
The bridge says it all.

“Look at the stillness…look at the quiet…look at the discipline…look at the BEAUTY.“

or see for yourself. Below is the video for Deviant – “Shoes Not Not” taken from this 7″

21-45

people under the stairs – hit the top
othello & dj vajra – same team suckas
wale ft bun b – mirrors
raekwon – 10 bricks
jay z – thank you
q tip – feelin’
mr. chop – t.r.o.y
the roots – how i got over
people under the stairs – step off
speech debelle – better days
georgia anne muldrow – run away
the clonious – if joe had the power
tokimonsta – let me trick u
four tet – love cry
florence & the machine – you got the love (the xx remix)

22-45

dubbledge ft tb – glaciers of ice
what’s the science – inspiration
kylie auldist – in a week, in a day (ashley beadle street soul edit)
phil upchurch – black gold
share my bed – player has butterflies
suff daddy chinatown chill
deviant & naive ted – beauty

**tokimonsta in the mix**

tracklisting unavailable

las ondas marteles – love in outer space

Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

The truth is “obvious,” he explained.  “Heterosexuality is normal human sexuality, while homosexuality is a deviation. These are obvious things. What is so ground-breaking is how successful activists have been at clouding out reality.”

“I think as the angry media continues to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality can’t be cured, … I want to continue to send the message of truth in opposition to that lie,” he said, “supported by the fact that I have just continued to be happier, more confident, and much, much more healthy – and much less, less gay – since 2007 and the years before.”

Read the article

More on similar matters (PDF file)

(Excerpt from the above referenced PDF document:)

The average society, according to the historian Arnold Toynbee, lasts about 200 years until it starts to decline.

He writes that, out of the 19 societies catalogued from the beginning of written history, all of them declined and fell due to moral corruption.

Only two societies did not succumb to moral corruption, and they survived indefinitely. (One of them was western Christianity, namely Catholicism, the Holy Roman Empire and beyond).

Unfortunately, the institutionalization of homosexuality (e.g., homosexual marriage; homosexual rights, etc) is, Toynbee says, the final and most devastating immorality, since shortly thereafter the society completely collapses.

No society has ever survived long after homosexuality was legally condoned and permitted.

Karnival Hands-On Mobile   リリース日: 2009/10/30 ジャンル: ゲーム © 2009 Hands-On Mobile, Inc

“Karnival”…iPhoneの中にDeviantARTな世界観。
あらま、またまた楽しそ〜なアプリです:)もうアレやコレとインスパイアを求めて遊園地へ行かなくても良いね。はは
昔で言う”テーマパークを作ろう”の不思議世界ヴァージョンです。まったく知らないデベロッパーなだけに不安ですが海外Reviewerによると結構シビアなゲームシステムらしく楽しめそうです。ステージはいくつもありますが、テーマパークではなく移動式遊園地なので違う場所を選択をする度にアトラクション等はゼロから設置していく形。コンテニューからのスタートの際は注意です。

にしても世界観が素敵すぎです。レトロでファンタジーでゴシックな。音楽もyoutubeのようなレトロな感じからメルヘンと数種類入っているので楽しめるし、iPodのプレイリストも読み込めるので自前に作った遊園地Tuneなんかも流しながらプレイ出来ます。
全て英語だけど最初はメリーゴーランドだけ使ったチュートリアルが用意されているので比較的、簡単にゲーム感は覚える事出来ると思います。

もう、そろそろiPhoneのアプリ開発も淘汰されていくだろうと感じます。この辺はやっぱ音楽とは違って次元が違うみたいに”流れ”が速いと感じている今日この頃。
チープなデベロッパーのクオリティじゃ大手や本家といったデベロッパーが次々と参入してきたりしたら、アマは「こっちの世界で成功してやるぞ！」って覚悟がない限り興味本位では参入出来ないよね。

…”セカンドライフ”もそうだったし。色々参入してたりしてたけど１年もたないSIMばかりだった…セカンドライフのDeviantARTなSIMも気付 いたら無くなっていたし。集客力がハンパじゃなくって世界中のプロ/アマ問わず様々なデザイナーやクリエーターが集まっていたのに…。

日本人のアプリみたいに”○○の〜”みたいな既にその時点で２次３次利用みたいなアプリばっかじゃ…なんて思います。まぁ、日本には日本のユーザー層があるから、ある意味それも成功例なのかもね。売れ筋はエロ、当たり障りのないゲーム、To doみたいな仕事系と辞書とか…iPhoneてアップル製品なのにアップルで一番夢のない(を持たない)商品みたいなイメージ。
ポケットの中に美女やら水着の写真とか入っているのが楽しんだろうか？

While it may very well be that all that we are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.

As of late, I have given some thought to the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Edward Wilson, Peter Singer and a number of other players in the current debates about God, morality, and evolutionary biology.  Their basic premise seems to be that what it means to be human or a part of nature can only be explained by evolutionary theory.  Moreover, this theory leads the to the inexorable conclusion that all can be reduced to an explanation as to how atomic physics have played out in the last however many billion years or so. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe ). Nary a thought is given to the real fact that all of us have an epistemological gap between us and the beginning of time, such that no present explanation of our world can suffice to explain it entirely.  God does readily fill that epistemological void.

While it may very well be that all that we (and the universe we have our be-ing in) are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.  This ability is seen nowhere else in the ‘natural world.’  Indeed, it is this very deviation from cosmic destiny, evolutionary theory, or even simple neuro-psychology, that uniquely defines what it is to be human.

Unlike the natural world, we are not dependent on the synchronicity of our coexistence with/in  the many moving and interactive elements of the earth’s evolved environment.  Ostensibly, we are readily able to defy what nature might otherwise dictate.  Singer and others have, rather oddly, concluded that behavior which defies nature is somehow ignoble or immoral.  Isn’t everything “natural,” in the sense that all that is must be derivative of evolutionary processes and atomic destiny?  What possible moral difference could stirring the pot of cosmic existence make, if we can only have derived our ability to stir the pot from the very substance found in the pot?  There has to be a clear distinction made between the subject and objects confronted by human existence.

As an aside, this does not mean that morality would have to be completely dependent on some traditional notion of God. It is simply a matter of distinguishing a difference between intentionality, conscious acknowledgment and the human experience of what is “moral,” from that which is simply a byproduct of evolutionary necessity and atomic structure. Whether these aspects are distinguishable from each other is the question that Professor Dawkins raises. The conceptual parsing done by Dawkins is actually quite admirable and necessary to the understanding of either side’s argument.

Moreover, it seems readily apparent that the process of evolution for the ‘natural world’ moves at the same pace as it has from the beginning of time (barring any natural disasters).  Animals and plants are not dependent on us for their existence in a natural state.  They only evolve at certain scientifically definable rates in accordance with the environmental variables which govern the process.

Simply put, humans command the ability to even deprive ourselves of the natural synchronicity with nature.  It is indeed arguable that we sometimes separate from nature and defy it.   At a minimum, we stand out from nature.  For example, a lion cannot simply redefine itself or make claim to an existence other than that which it has at its essence. A view toward’s Heidegger’s philosophy on death would also underscore the reality that humans are perfectly capable of  experiencing “unnatural” deaths.  Most lions and other creatures will die substantially the same way and of the same causes.  Humans, however, bear a capacity for defining even the parameters of our own deaths.  Certainly, our nearest alleged “relatives,” chimpanzees, can hardly lay stake to such abilities.  In other words, there is something about the human experience that can be completely differentiated from that of the animal experience.  Indeed, this statement can be made even without accounting for the unique capacity of humans to conceive of [a] God, to understand beauty, and to engage in the fine arts.

Nevertheless, we can rightly claim that humans engage in unnatural acts.  They engage in acts that defy natural selection and the otherwise undisturbed progression of the natural world outside of humanity.  Animals are not generally self destructive in any real way.  Humans, on the other hand, are completely competent to destroy themselves and everything else around them.  Indeed, humankind is readily able to change its environment quickly and drastically.  And, in so changing, it becomes apparent that we are the only creatures on earth that are capable of self-directed evolution, even to the point of destroying ourselves.   Seemingly, evolutionists are ready to deprive of humankind of this sacred and distinct attribute shared by no other living creatures.

Frankly, it seems inconsistent to stand by an evolutionary biology explanans for why things are the way they are, and yet complain about the seemingly out of control, or even allegedly  immoral, progress of humanity.  Morality simply has no place in a universe driven only by the predisposed nature of atomic structures and the rules of physics to which they are bound.  In a very important sense, the effect of human existence on the environment is no less evolutionary or atomically driven than any other process that is claimed to have arisen from a purely evolutionary beginning.  That is, if one believes that all must have come from simple existence which led to a graduated complexity.

In order to speak of “moral” behavior, one must first believe that there is some constituent part of the universe which can be moral or act in a moral way.  If we rely simply on the synaptic firing of our neurons, coupled with a genetic destiny, it simply does not make sense to incorporate a moral lexicon into human existence.  However, if one believes that moral behavior is a step above, or uniquely differentiated from, the coldness of evolutionary survival of the species, it must follow that one believes that there is a higher arche to the human existence.  Whether this is attributable to God or a higher being/be-ing (a template for higher being or a more complex nature outside of the natural rules that apply to all other creatures), or not, seems to be the real question.

There are a good number of evolutionary biologists and philosophers of our time who readily conclude that all of human existence can simply be explained by reference to the primordial atomic soup from which all has evolved.  They do not explain where the atomic structure/fabric came from, they do not explain the source of the energy driving all that is, they ignore or gloss over the origins of art and beauty, and they completely ignore the obvious fact that the human line of species significantly deviates from otherwise predictable genetic destinies or even basic natural evolution of the rest of nature and its evolving complexity.

At first glance, the basic problem with evolutionary biology is that it rests upon what appears to be a purely linear view of the time-space continuum.  This purely linear view adds an unnecessary viscosity to the stream of the cosmos and nature itself. The evolutionists view does not account for the fact that all matter, or representations of matter, derive from an admittedly common source and theoretical moment of being put in motion.  That is, all things that can be perceived in the real world are the same age by reference to atomic matter, interactivity, and movement of the cosmos.

The only difference between one atomic structure and another is the ‘present’ constituency of the thing perceived.  Under a non-linear view of time, it may just be the case that the “age” of things is a function of where they are in the movement of the “cosmic swirl.”  An evolutionist should not confuse the properties of age with actual age — if time can even be said to be a good structure for cosmology.  If there was a single moment of creation, moving forward, differing “ages” of the atomic world’s constituents are not so obvious as to merit the conclusion that the universe actually is 13.7 to 37 billion years old or any other specific age for that matter.  If, at the time the cosmos was put in motion, certain aspects of reality were given characteristics in their atomic structure that give off the impression of being “older,” it may simply be that the evolutionist has been fooled in much the way a purchaser of art might be fooled by the acquisition of a good faux painting.  The thing acquired or perceived has all of the characteristics, but is lacking in the need of its original creator and an understanding of the process leading up to the perceived masterpiece.

In other words, the moment of creation may simply have been a stirring of the pot by an Omnipotent and wholly self sufficient Primary Mover.  A cyclical or interwoven time structure is not the same as a linear structure which starts from a given point and brings us to something called “today.”  The ’swirl’  of the cosmic mass we call reality should not be confused with a purely linear view of reality, upon which evolution must rely (i.e., reliance on a Big Bang, primordial soup, then various periods of evolution/advancement of varying species).  Obviously, if linear time is the framework for the edifice of evolution, there is a strong likelihood that evolutionary theory is defectively constructed.

Additionally, it seems that the atheist opposition confuses their perceived improbability of God with ultimate exclusion from the range of all possibilities.  In the view of Dawkins and his company, it is nearly an absolute truth that God does not exist.  Were it the case that Dawkins could overcome the long standing objections that might be made by George Berkeley as to the importance of human perception in all of this, perhaps a better argument could be made.  However, Dawkins and his crew presuppose the validity and concrete values of their perceptions and just assume that a consensus gentium argument will carry the day because a vast number of other evolutionary biologists happen to agree on the notion that God, Creationism or Intelligent Design are improbable or altogether wacky.  Solipsism remains a strong enemy of confidence in the truth values of our own perceptions.  In fact it does seem that the utility and efficacy of certain “memes” bears out this very problem.  Cultural evolution is a product of passed on perception, without necessary regard to or of principles deriving from mathematics or physics.

In order for anyone’s argument to work with respect to great cosmological arguments, it does seem that the veil of basic human perception must first be torn and put aside in favor of an unobstructed view of reality.  Humanity has proven itself quite incapable of divesting itself from its condition as a status which depends purely on the senses and humanized logic.  Professor Dawkins and his ilk may be assured that just as great a number of scientific theories have fallen, after ready acceptance by consensus, as have arguments for the existence of particular gods or ontologies.  In large part, it seems that the human defect of limited perception is the cause of a great number of these many failed scientific theories throughout history. Indeed, it seems apparent that our singular or collective experiences limit the conclusions to which we may arrive.  Experience naturally limits the parameters of what we can actually know.  Admittedly, the breadth of one’s “experience” can be widened with knowledge/exposure to mathematics, physics, chemistry, theory of biology, philosophy, and other areas of learning.  However, the expansion of theory is dependent on the limits of our own personal knowledge and that of our colleagues in thought.  The limits of humanity do not give way simply because one believes in evolutionary biology.

Father Time has proven himself to be a bitter enemy to the life span of most scientific theories.  As human perception ‘evolves,’ scientific theories die.  Sometimes they die by the weight of their own complexity or the simply are shown to be inconsistent with the collective perceptions of an advanced humanity.  Oddly, however, the explanatory value of a higher cause or higher being has not died since the conceivable beginnings of human thought about the source of our being and the reasons for our existence.  This may be simply because a belief in God does provide a fabric to all that is.  Or, it may just as well be that the vast majority of humans have perceived something that can only be described as God.  For as many scientists and theologians as there have been in history, there have probably been nearly as many fools among them.

The pervasive perception of God, or the empirical basis for the use of a word such as “God,” cannot be simply disregarded.  Simply because Dawkins has not personally perceived something that might be called God does not allow him to summarily dispense with any Wittgensteinean objections as to the limits of our language and ability to articulate what we experience.  It is undeniably the case that the Judeo-Christian view of the world has rather successfully sufficed to unite an advancing/progressive group of humans, indeed the entirety of Western Culture, of which Professor Dawkins would be a participant.  The “memes” of, or which are, Christianity have proven to be a rather powerful force by any account.  See generally, John 1:1-4 (KJV).

It seems to me that the evolutionists of our time ought to give some minor consideration to the thought that the theoretical explanans and the actual explanandum of human existence are conceivably different.  If truth be the sum of its complete, necessary and agreed upon conditions, the evolutionary biologists/theorists have plenty of agreement, but could not possibly have a complete or necessary epistemological basis for the ultimate truths they espouse.  Admittedly, the same applies for a strict historical or epistemological view of Christianity.

In the case of both Evolutionary Theory and the belief in God, there is indicia of pure religion.  Religion requires certain elements, which appear to be:  1.)  A redemptive or explanatory story for what is;  2.) An explanandum/definiendum which outside of complete human perception or experience;  3.) Preachers and prophets of the truth or content contained within the explanans/definiens; 4.) A body of the faithful who simply may have no epistemelogical basis for a belief in what is explained or the explanation itself; 5.) A desire to operate by explanatory fiat or ultimatum.  Zealotry on behalf of any such religion can lead to discord and unnecessary viscosity in the stream of otherwise valuable arguments.  Certainly, both sides of the Intelligent Design argument seem perfectly capable and willing to lift the sword toward the other.

Or it may very well be that the enemies of God are simply asking the wrong questions even about their own existence and be-ing (Dasein) in the Heideggerian sense.  Perhaps it is just that they think it important to “stir the pot” in the proverbial sense.  But what sense does it make to stir the pot if you’re in it?

 

 

<a href=”http://www.forexchecklist.com”>forex trading online</a>

Never expected to be banned for approximately 3 days from posting in wordpress.com. I received a warning saying that I should email them about the problem for me to know the rootcause as to why they disabled my right to post. So there, I did shoot an email extending my problem and received a response from a wordpress administrator named Mark. He said:

“Hi, Could the sidebar affiliate links be removed please? We no longer allow those. When we are made aware of any other similar blogs they will be treated the same.

Thanks.”

The widgets that I thought first were the Paid-to-Click sites on my sidebar. And just to confirm, I asked him again if he is referring to that but I already eliminated those widgets before I sent the email. Then, I received a response from him saying:

“Hi, You need to clear the widget. Even where it is the system will catch it again. It looks everywhere. The blog works – until the system sees it.”

In spite of deleting the widgets, which I thought might be the reason of my warning, my eligibility for posting was still disabled. I let another day pass. On the verge of giving up, I opened my account, with a little hope of seeing the warning no more, it surprised me to see that it was not there. That only meant I got reinstated for my right to post. I love blogging in wordpress and I cannot afford to have another blogsite.

——————

When I opened my tindahannibok accounts (email, wordpress, and multiply), I received the following comments:

“hello I know its not right, the image you’ve been using in this blog site happens to be an artwork of a friend hes rhiver.deviantart.com a personal friend of mine, better contact him or give proper credits, before legal actions are needed to be applied, thank you”

“art belongs to http://www.rhiver.deviantart.com, it’s not funny to see your artwork used by others. :\ it’s called “stolen” >. >”

“.___. the artwork beside “tindahan ni bok” is belong to RH QUILANTANG. www.rhiver.deviantart.com, and i’m pretty sure even the artwork at the back of “meet the seller” is not yours too. ART THIEF.”

After reading all these comments, I immediately disabled all pics that have to do with the owner of that deviant art. I searched his name in facebook and I sent a message to him, apologizing and formally asking permission of using his artwork in my online store. Good thing, he is kindhearted enough to let me use his artwork and this owner did not even put any profane words on his reply. I salute you sir for being calm and professional. Rest assured that I’m going to put credits to your name in my site as you wish.

How I love photoshop, helps me along the way of a true deviant. ^^

In Dying Days were one of the few bands in Quebec doing the really metallic style of hardcore which was big in Florida. They were often compared to Poison the Well and Morning Again, but personally I would compare them to This Day Forward.

They would record a demo tape in 1998 after forming, with their original vocalist Olivier, and would build up a good following right away. They then switched vocalists and ended up with Mike Doucet. They recorded a second demo “To Forget Yesterday”, and  would come in contact with James Hamilton who was working on his new record label, Re- Define Records. He decided to officially release the demo as their first ep. James decided to press a limited run of a single song from it on tape, to see if the product was marketable. Indeed it was because the ep would come out as the labels’ first output.

The band band was then approached by Good Life Recordings, and would be featured on their VHS “Good Life T.V.” (which had Morning Again and As Friends Rust on it) as well as a compilation, which featured their song “Once Were Warriors”, from their debut ep. They would however sign a contract deal with One Day Savior instead.

The band recorded some demos for their second ep, “Life as a Balancing Act” in 2002, which would be released by ODS. The year after, “After the Fire” would be released on the same label. Both would do really well for the band. They would also appear on the “True Until Death” compilation by United Edge Records.

In Dying Days – EPs

T-shirt design collaboration of a friend and myself. We submitted it in a competition for deviantART but sadly in the wrong category. Either way its still a pretty cool concept.

so, if you didnt know, today is the day i usually head down to games world to play Magic: The Gathering (i know, kinda nerdy huh?) and just kicked ass today, so i cant complain about that, now that im at home, im kinda a bit more happy here than there, because it is kind of warm outside today, nothign i cant withstand but meh, anyway, the air conditioner is nice right now, nice and chilly =P

theres alot of crazy drivers where i live, and i swear i saw an old granny flooring it like some guy with a souped up car on P plates, now a crazy granny driver……..thats kind of….odd, was almost the most randomest thing i saw today…..untill a mate of mine was so random, everyone aroudn just went silent and looked at him for a good 2 minutes, kinda like awkward silence, but knowing why they were staring at him haha

i should really draw some more stuff, but ill get around to it later, i just want a break right now, but if anyone likes to look at some art, take a gander here: http://kin37ik.deviantart.com

and i think thats all for now, ciao

Since I posted my first art related post, I’ll give you a link to a site full of good artwork; http://www.deviantart.com/

I’ll make a page for it later.

yeah, long time no talk eh? havent reallyt had much time to get on wordpress much, been really busy, so whats new?

well first off i found a job, which is pretty cool, i got some artwork commissions which is great, ive gone back to tae kwon do after not training for about 6 months hehe, and getting out and about and helping out with others things, so schedule has been kind of busy, but im back now so hey, what do you know…

the other day the most random thing happend, i was awake at 2AM (yes 2AM =P) when all of a sudden i heard yelling comming from down the road, there was an argument at someones house at 2AM?!?!?!? i was like WTF, woke up the next morning only to see that there was a great big punchup at the end of my street…..between several girls, i was surprised to say the least, since i didnt not expect to see that early in the morning, go figure, weird things happen eh..

hip hop Radio show is still going strong, as usual, not many changes there

a little bit annoyed at the fact that my favorite pair of jeans got paint on them, ohh well.

starting drawing a hand drawn animation, quite an exciting adventure this will be, animations tests will be on DeviantArt

and i think thats all i gotta say for now

(i will try and update more regularly now)

Jason Hoffine turns nightmares into pictures in his beautiful works that I have posted here.  Amazing.

<a href=”http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://vraimentfolle.wordpress.com/%26title%3DThe%2BArticle%2BTitle”> <img border=0 src=”http://cdn.stumble-upon.com/images/120×20_thumb_black.gif” alt=”"></a>

My love for Bill Mosley started some years ago when I first saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre II. His character Chop-Top made me laugh, but I felt a little dirty each time I chuckled at him.  He’d heat up the end of his scratcher with that metallic lighter, then go to town on his T-800 dome, and a little bit of nausea rose up in me with each flake of skin he’d gobble down.

\”Dog will hunt!\”

But just like telling spooky stories with friends late at night, the unnerving feelings are welcomed and even encouraged.  If an actor can honestly make you wanna feel a way that you’d adamantly avoid normally, they’re doing a damn good job.

Years later I went to the Lacey theater with a big group of friends and randoms.  The building always weirded be out when I was little because of its exterior; it looked like a fleshy melting sqaure.  I like to think  the idea behinds its construction was to pour concrete on a solid structure in the middle of a heatwave and let physics do the rest.  I digress.  The friends, randoms, and myself were going to see The Devils Rejects. I had seen House of 1,000 Corpses a couple years prior and hated it, yet I was super excited to see the “sequel” for some reason.

There’s no reason for me to go into details about the actual movie-going experience so I’ll just sum it up:  the girlfriend at the time almost vomited during the semi-truck vs crazed victim scene, my buddy Tate addressed some shusher as “bitch” then continued to explain how gore is funny, and Freebird from that day on held a totally different residence in my heart.

So many aspects are hitting all the right cylinders in the movie, but the characters standout above everything.  I’d assume the roles which carried over from 1,000 Corpses was what excited me about Rejects because otherwise the ladder had nothing going for it besides a budget.  Just how Tarentino is an expert when it comes to casting actors to actually fit a role as opposed to selling the film, Rob Zombie filled his sophomore work with people who make you believe in them and are capable of taking the audience through acts one, two, and three.  Otis Driftwood was the one character bringing home the fucking bacon, but he was actually going out and slaughtering the pigs with a big ol’ boot knife.

Bill Moseley brought this vibe to a character you’re supposed to hate, but more importantly fear.  His introduction into the film shows him laying in some mess of a room – stained tighty-whities the only thing covering his thin build – with his arm over the corpse of some dead teenage girl.  Now, unless you have a Teen Beat poster of Ted Bundy above your bed (come on, the man was a lady-killer, eh eh?), automatically you lump Mr. Driftwood into the “fuck-you-I-hope-you-choke-on-twenty-three-issues-of-Vogue” category.  As the film unfurls you start to laugh at Otis’ jokes and see him as some sort of white trash evil deity.  He’s the kinda guy that is SO much fun to go out drinking with, but every once in a while he gets the devil in him and pops you one… yet you keep going out drinking with him.  Just me?  Whatever pussies.

What I’m trying to get at is that Bill Mosley has this charisma as an actor, but his charm usually draws you to some deviant that got his seventeen year old girlfriend pregnant, crashed his Dad’s ‘63 Impala SS, and stole your piggy bank to buy meth.  That takes some talent, dammit.

Ridiculously loud laughing aside due to my humor:  we love rooting for bad guys every once in a while.  If you watch enough Jason and Freddy movies you will end up always crossing your fingers hoping that the “annoying kid in the wheelchair” character gets it, because, come on… teenagers suck.  But from time to time we wanna let a little bit of that darkness in, whether it’s laughing at someone stubbing their toe or Scratchy chopping Itchy into pieces then shooting him to the Moon.  No one is perfect – besides me in 11th grade – so sinning through thought or action is necessary here and there.  Me?  I like letting Bill Mosley do the work for me.

\”I want lightning to come down and crash upon my fucking head!\”