-oye jesus gracias
-pq me llamas jesus tengo cara de puerto riqueño?
-ese tio te ha llamado jesus?
-es zeus
-zeus?… Leer más
-si zeus, como el padre de Apolo, el del Monte Olimpo, el de no me toques los cojones que te meto un rayo por el culo,ZEUS!¡ ¿Te parece mal o que?

Jungla de Cristal: La Venganza

Gracias Gonzalin

“Ummmm, aquel chavito esta muy de buen ver… me imagino la macana que se ha de cargar…que rico…”

Muchos de ustedes, cabrones, han de han ver visto la serie que, de casualidad, se podria llamar “Esposas calientes, zorras,  frustradas, neuroticas, ambiciosas, estupidas, fracasadas y desesperadas con una vida mediocre y vomitiva” , para deleitarse con las suculentas carnes de la Eva Longoria, (que practicamente se la pasaba en sosten y calzones todos los capitulos) y no para ponerle atencion a las pendejas zorraventuras de las tales esposas en busca de pito.

Pero en la serie hay mas hembras que la Longoria. En ella desfilan varias maduritas de bastante buen ver y que se ven bien querendonas, como la Nicollette Sheridan, que interpreta a la rubia devorahombres, Edie Williams, que, como pueden ver, esta a la caza de carne joven y freca para llevarla a su cama.

Yo si estaria dispuesto a caer es su redes

¿y ustedes?

Moon Area Tiger’s season came to a close with a 51 – 50 OT loss to the Lancers from General McLane.

Great Season Tigers! Now that basketball season is over, it begs the question….What do I take pictures of ? Check in later for the answer.

-Bob

McLane, a major supplier in the food and convenient store industry is opening a new distribution facility in Republic Missouri, creating 400 new jobs.   The jobs will average $32,000 and come with benefits.  Good ecnomic news for Missouri, and positive news for our economy! Read the full story here:

http://www.ksmu.org/content/view/4134/2/

Goodbye six game winning streak, hello four game losing streak. A .600 winning percentage ain’t bad, but it’s sure not what it looked like we had going before Ike washed all our mojo away. Goodbye .305 team batting average, hello .092 team batting average. Goodbye 32 1/3 scoreless innings, hello four run first. Wait, back up, we’re hitting .092??!! Over four games??!! Okay, things will get better over the remaining games. Things CAN’T stay like this.

Chances are, we aren’t going to make the playoffs, but heck, is this a team that deserves to go to the playoffs? We’ll finish with a winning record, which is pretty darn impressive for a team that had to trot Runelvys Hernandez onto the bump more than once. Honestly, if this team does regain the magic to make the playoffs, I’ll be overwhelmed, overjoyed, and also a bit worried about the validation that would provide to the tactics of Ed Wade and Drayton McLane (more on that next time).

The law of averages catches up to a team like this, to guys like Brian Moehler, Randy Wolf, Darin Erstad and Geoff Blum. It was fun while it lasted, but now it’s time to salute a group that didn’t quit after being in last place at the All Star break. These guys are winners.

Ummm… I’m so glad that I wasn’t the one that had to clean this up!  Can you imagine the smell afterwards?  Yech!  But it is definitely fun to watch…

ht Adam M. and Kyle

Rectitude is something fixed and immutable. It is not the creation of the Divine will, but has its everlasting foundation in the moral character of God. Whatever in human action, therefore, is conformed to his image, is holy, just, and good – all that is contrary thereto possesses no such character. Actions, consequently, have some positive quality – are essentially right or wrong. The law of God is a transcript of his character – an expression of his infinite nature, giving direction to the conduct of beings made in his image – superintending all their movements, and bringing them into an unbroken harmony with truth and righteousness. The law of veracity, therefore, has its origin, its eternal residence, in the truthfulness of God – in his infinite attachment to what is true, and abhorrence of all that is false. Hence, we conclude with Calvin, that “we ought to preserve the truth without the least disguise.” The command presses us to this. It is sacred and universal regard to truth in all our thoughts, words, and actions.

We feel no difficulty here in determining the path of duty – in discerning between right and wrong. Truth is the reality of things. Logically considered, it is the exact conformity of an assertion, however made, to the facts in the case. But in a moral aspect, it is the conformity of our words and actions to our sentiments. In other words, it consists in an intention to convey to others the real conceptions of our own minds. While, therefore, logical truth respects the reality of what is asserted, moral truth, that is, veracity, has reference to the person who acts, and consists in his communicating to others, as far as he is able, his conceptions of a fact exactly as they exist in his own mind; or, in the language of jurisprudence, in his telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A falsehood, therefore, is easily defined. It is the violation of ethical or moral truth. It consists in conveying, intentionally, to another, in any way, an impression respecting a fact different from that which obtains in the mind of the person conveying it.

It is claimed, however, by some that such action is not in all cases sinful. They maintain that deception is sometimes justifiable. This we do not believe. We regard the position as entirely untenable – as fraught with evil. Once admit this, and all things are thrown into chaos. Definition becomes impossible. No one can draw the line of distinction between right and wrong, or say with any exactness how far men may depart from the truth, or where falsehood commences. The advocates of this loose morality are wont to select some instance of a trivial nature, where the evil is apparently very small – some case where the deception is in mere sport, and to argue from this the innocence of such acts. But what if we lessen evil a thousand times, and even fritter it away until the morally bedimmed eye of man cannot perceive it, does it, in its diminished form, cease to be evil? Can any diminution of evil become right? As a test of character – as a proof of principle, the less the departure from truth may be, the greater is the strength of virtue which detects it, and abstains from it. Hence the Saviour makes fidelity in that which is least, a sure criterion by which to judge of a man’s adherence to principle in matters of far greater moment.

The more common resort, however, is to the consequences of an act – to the end gained by it, and as this is good, to conclude that the way in which it is gained is good also. The end justifies the means. Hence, in the view of Paley and others of this school, when little or no inconvenience will result from falsehood, asserted for a good end, the act is not sinful. The general principle laid down is, that if, in any case, the happiness of others may be more effectually promoted by falsehood than by truth, then the act ceases to be wrong – is right. Now, to us, there is a fearful arrogance in this supposition. It arrays the imagination of the creature against the intelligence of the Creator – affects to make man wiser than God. He commands us to speak the truth, and assures us that all things work together for good to the obedient. But in this supposition a man takes the ground that under certain circumstances deception will result in greater good than the communications of truth. How does he know this? Does he see the end from the beginning? Is any part of God’s providence so framed as thus to countenance falsehood – to throw discredit upon the sacredness of truth? What, then, is the language of his conduct? This, that he is wiser than the Lawgiver – that falsehood is safer in the case supposed than truth, – and that a higher end can be gained by deception in that instance, than can be secured by confidence in God, and by action in accordance with the directions of his Word.

We cannot, for one moment, admit the premises in this case. The supposition is monstrous – is an utter and eternal impossibility. There is no instance, no circumstances, in which deception can effect more good than the truth. God’s providence, in its issues, is coincident with his Word. The results of the one accord with the teachings of the other. His command to us is to speak the truth. Obedience to this will promote the happiness of men in all possible cases more than any departure from it can do. Truth fays in exactly with all the working of his providence, and comes out in eternal issues of good. Hence, the man who walks uprightly, walks safely. And the direction given to him, who would see good, is to keep his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking guile. We are on dangerous ground, therefore, when we thus let go our confidence in God’s protection, and begin to balance between right and wrong; when we put our wisdom in the place of God’s, and introduce into the scale of falsehood some imagined good, and thus make it outweigh the eternal securities of truth, linked as they are, in the providence of God, with its utterance. We have lessons of warning on this subject, which ought never to be forgotten. Abraham, when in the country of Abimelech, thought that he had found in the difficulties of his situation, a fulcrum on which the lever of prevarication would work better and more to his security than that of truth. But the result showed him his great mistake. And so it will be in every case, when we see the end from the beginning.

There is, then, no possible ground for the case supposed. Deception has a character independent of any issues consequent upon it. By this it must be judged. It is an act in which we intentionally mislead another, causing him either to believe what is false, or to disbelieve what is true. In either case, this can be done only by conveying to him an impression of something different from that existing in our own minds respecting it, that is, by an infraction of the law of veracity. The very cases, cited as justifiable acts, prove this. Take the case of the man traveling through a country beset with robbers, and who arms himself with empty pistols, carefully concealed. When the robbers approach him, he reveals his weapons, and makes them believe by his acts that, if they venture further toward him, he will shoot them. Now he has no such intention. His pistols are empty. His actions, therefore, speaks one thing, his heart another. What, then, is the character of that act? Does it tell the truth in this case? Not at all. The man has a right to defend himself – to shoot those robbers, if need be, but he has no right, by word or deed, to say what is untrue. He is under no obligation to speak. He may remain silent – may do nothing, but if he does act, he is bound to speak the truth – to act the truth.

Again: A mother sees her child near the verge of a precipice. A step or two more and it is gone. She resorts to deception to save it. She attracts its attention, and allures it to her by the promise of that which she has no intention of giving to it when rescued from its perilous condition. This, we are told, is all right, inasmuch as no injury results from it to the child. No injury! How do we know this? Does not deception injure it? Does it not tend to undermine the confidence of that child in the veracity of its mother, and to lead it to deceive? But translate that act into words, and what have we? A promise made, and made with the intention of not fulfilling it suppressed. And is this justifiable? Is it right to promise another to do what we at the time do not intend to perform? Such a transaction is below par in the estimate of the most vulgar honesty, and is scouted from the business of all honourable men. And yet a mother may thus treat her child!

As a specimen of those stratagems, which we are told may be practised in war, we take that much applauded ruse de guerre of Washington, by means of which he detained Sir Henry Clinton in New York, while he concentrated all his forces at Yorktown in Virginia. In this case one thing was said and another meant. If, therefore, we take from the transaction the glare of the successful result, we have what no man, in his sober judgment, can for one moment approve – a plain, positive infraction of the law of veracity. The apology is, that it was done in war, and in reference to an enemy. But truth is the same at all times, and in all possible relations. Circumstances cannot change its character, nor make the violation of its sacredness a virtue.

But the advocates of the view we are opposing appeal to the Bible, and contend that there are cases of deception mentioned in that book which were practised with the Divine sanction. Before referring to these cases, it may be well to remark, that the Bible is consistent with itself throughout, and can never be rightly construed, therefore, when one part is made to clash with another. Again, what is plain and obvious in the Bible must always be allowed to explain what is obscure. In this book we are commanded to keep ourselves far from a false matter – we are not allowed to deal falsely or to lie one to another – but are to have our conversation in all simplicity and godly sincerity – to keep our tongues from speaking guile, and to abstain from all appearance of evil. This is all plain – perfectly clear. In this light, then, let us examine some of the more prominent cases adduced from the Bible to prove that deception, in certain cases, is right.

Much stress is laid on the conduct of Joshua in taking the city of Ai. In this case there seems, at first view, some appearance of plausibility, but when placed in its true light, no conclusion can, we think, be fairly drawn from it in favor of deception. The direction given to Joshua was to lie in ambush, that is, not to reveal at first his whole strength to the enemy. He certainly was under no obligation to reveal this. The enemy had no right to know from him what forces he could bring into the field. Withholding a fact is one thing, denying its existence by words or acts is quite another. In defending himself against an assailant, a man may choose his own time and manner of bringing out all his means of defence. Do in the case before us, Joshua simply withheld from the enemy what they had no right to know from him. He appeared before the city with a part only of his forces. There was here consequently, as Matthew Henry very justly remarks, “no untruth told. Nothing was concealed but their own counsels; nothing was dissembled, nothing counterfeited but a retreat, which was no natural or necessary indication at all of their inability to maintain their onset, or of any design not to renew it.”

But still greater emphasis is laid upon the instance of Samuel’s anointing David at Bethlehem. In this case the prophet was commanded to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of the sons of Jesse; and when he objected through fear of Saul, he was directed to take with him a heifer, and to say to the inhabitants of that place, when asked by them the object of his coming, that he came to offer a sacrifice unto the Lord. And so he acted. Here, therefore, the prophet had a twofold object to accomplish in going to Bethlehem. The main design of is coming to that place he did not reveal. He was under no obligation to reveal it. In the answer he gave, he did not give a feigned reason. He came to do what he stated, just as really as if it had been his sole object in coming to Bethlehem. He had, indeed, a further and greater end to accomplish, but both objects were alike real. A man may have a dozen ends to accomplish in coming to New York, and if asked by the people here, wherefore he comes, he tells no untruth, surely, if he gives any one of the twelve as the object of his visit. He is under no obligation to assign any reason at all. He may, therefore, given any one or none of them, just as he may deem it wise to do. So Samuel acted. There was no deception on his part. All that can be said is simply that he did not reveal the chief object of his coming to Bethlehem. But this he was not bound to do. He came to do all that he affirmed as his object. And he made his word good.

Some go still further, and assert that God acts upon this principle – that he deceives men. The cases adduced in proof of this, however, when properly understood, give no countenance to any such idea. The instance of Nineveh is mentioned. God threatened to destroy that city, we are told, and yet he did not do it. But was this deception? The people of Nineveh surely were not deceived by it. They understood the import of God’s message to them. They felt that it was conditional – that if they turned every one of them from their evil way, and from the violence that was in their hand, the threatened evil would not come upon them. This was implied in the commination. The design of it was to lead them to repentance. They viewed it in that light, and turned from their iniquities and were spared.

Again, we are told that God has said that he foreknew wicked men would mistake, and by which they would deceive themselves. But was this the object of God in saying what he has? He foreknew that the gospel would be tortured, and made the means of deceiving men, and yet this was not his object in giving men the gospel. The perversion of his goodness by men is no proof that he deceives them. The design of an act is what we must look at, not the abuse of that design. But it is claimed that god avows in his Word that he deceives men. We are pointed to Ez. 14:9, where he says, And if the prophet is deceived, I the Lord have deceived him. True: God is often said to do what he permits to be done. Thus he is said to create evil – to do evil, where the meaning is, he suffers others to do it. So in this case. God says, If any prophet should flatter idolaters, and lead them to hope for his favor, he has deceived that prophet, that is, he has suffered temptation to be laid before him, and suffered him to yield to it. He has given him up to the delusions of his own heart – left him to his own way, to be deceived, and to deceive others. This is the only sense in which God can be said to do evil – to deceive any one.

We will refer only to one case more. The action of the Saviour in reference to the disciples, on their coming into the village of Emmaus, is often cited as an instance of deception. He made as though he would have gone further. He seemed to them to be going further, and such unquestionably was his intention, unless pressed to tarry with them. There was consequently no deception here, not even the semblance of it. The friend who joins us in our walk, and who comes with us to our door, may wait for an invitation, and some urgency even, to tarry with us, without being a deceiver. His intention may be to go on, unless entreated to stop, and he may make as though he would do this, that is, he may signify his intention to do so by his actions, and yet convey to us nothing but the real state of his mind – the simple truth in the case.

The Bible, then, does not countenance the idea that deception in any instance is right. So far from this, it everywhere condemns it in all its aspects. It binds us to the utterance of the truth whenever we speak – to keep ourselves far from a false matter – to lay aside all guile. It calls us up to the high places of an unfaltering confidence in God, and with the assurance that they alone are the places of honor and of safety. The great temptation to deceive is in the wretched idea that a better result will thus ensue than will by the opposite course. But the highest issues of good come from right action. God’s providence demonstrates the positions of his Word. Hence, it is a manifold experience, says Chalmers, that the humble, the upright, the believing, as if shielded by an invisible hand, do walk the most safely and the most prosperously through the world.

We cannot conclude these remarks without adverting briefly to some things in the benevolent movements of our day, which, however good the end intended is, are nevertheless of very questionable propriety. There is no doubt a very strong temptation often to the use of deception. Feeling as we do that the truth of God should be scattered all over the earth – that his precious Word should be in every human habitation, and be proclaimed to every creature, we are in some danger of not sufficiently regarding the means by which we seek to gain these glorious ends. The Bible has long been a proscribed book in Italy, and as the government has no right to keep it from the people, some tell us that it is perfectly proper to introduce it there by stealth. Hence, a good Christian brother, in going to that country not long since, took with him a number of Bibles for distribution, which he put into a jar, and had the jar labeled as containing sweetmeats, and as such it passed into the country.

Again: a benevolent society, thinking that its excellent publications may be read more extensively and do more good, if some of them are issued without the society’s imprint, lay aside that, and put in its place the name of some one, who is no more the real publisher, than the man in the moon. Take another case. The friends of truth in Italy, in concert with Christians elsewhere, are in the habit, it is said, of circulating little tracts, or fly-leaves, as they are called, by rolling them up and dropping them in the streets and thoroughfares as refuse paper. These instances may be taken as specimens of the tendency to which we are adverting. The end in all of them, we admit, is very good, but are the means right? It grieves us to see any semblance even of deception or craft in the work of benevolence. We dislike any approach to those arts and disguises practised by some, and which show a want of confidence in the goodness of their cause, and especially in the protecting, sustaining providence of God. We can never bring our mind to the point attacking the enemy of righteousness with his own weapons – of meeting him as he meets us. We abhor his ways, and can feel no complacency in any resemblance to them, however remote.

The apostles acted very differently. They were of the day, open, frank, and without disguise. They went straight forward to their work. They planted themselves on the high elevations of unwavering confidence in God, and did what he commanded, feeling that he would take care of them, and of his own cause. When persecuted in one place, they went to another. There was no guile – no cunning in their plan of operation. They never smuggled a Bible into any place under cover of a false label. They never put any other imprint upon their epistles but that of their own names. They never dropped a leaf of truth as if they were throwing it away. No; they stood up like men – proclaimed the truth – were clear as the sun, and therefore terrible to their enemies as an army with banners. One chased a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight. Like them, the friends of truth should be “so clear in their great calling, that their virtues may plead like angels, trumpet-tongued,” against all unrighteousness of men, and in behalf of the truth as it is in Jesus. What if such a course exposes them to insult, let it come. What if it kindles the fire of persecution, let it burn. It has always filled the world with light – it always will. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. God’s truth has often been saved as by fire, and it may be again.

(The Biblical Repository and Classical Review. 1850. 6: 546-553)

Book on related topic:
A Lie Never Justifiable

Recentemente ho avuto una discussione con Madrefoca sui suoi idoli: ne ha troppi, e discutibili , e penso che non riuscirà mai a pubblicarne una lista definitiva. Così gli ho proposto di filtrarla per generi e questo mi ha fatto venire in mente questa categoria di top five. Ma iniziamo:

1- Darth Vader

Dannatamente prevedibile, d’altronde è il mio punto debole: prima ti offrirà di unirti a lui per governare assieme la galassia e poi ti mozzerà una mano.

2- Henry Jones

Già, il padre di Henry Jones Junior AKA Indiana Jones: ti spaccherà un rarissimo vaso della dinastia Ming sulla testa ma ti insegnerà come superare le tre prove per ottenere il Graal [Nicholas Cage, rosica! ]

3- John Matrix

Gli rapiscono la figlia: muoiono. Lui i berretti verdi li mangia a colazione.

4-John McLane

Gli rapiscono la figlia [dove l'ho già sentita?] : Muoiono, ma non abbastanza. Yippikyayee motherfucker

5- Peter Griffin

Per giustificare la sua presenza in top five è sufficiente una wikiquote a random:

Peter (when he’s hungover): This sucks worse than that time I went to that museum. (Flashback to childhood, standing in museum looking at dinosaur skeltons.)
Peter (as a child): Why did all the dinosaurs die out?
Man at Museum: Because you touch yourself at night.

Titre : Die hard 4 – Relevez le défi!
Adresse: http://www.diehard4-ledvd.com/
Développeur : 20th Century Fox
Annonceur: 20th Century Fox
Année de publication: 2008
Jeux concours: non
Collecte d’informations: non

Pour les joueurs
En ces temps où l’on fête les rois, il m’a semblé logique de vous parler de la sortie de Die Hard 4 en galettes DVD, HD DVD et Blu-Ray. L’ advergame de la campagne est coupé en quatre parts relativement égales. On trouve donc quatre mini-jeu prennant place dans les environnements du film. Ces derniers vont de la course pieds nus sur verre brisé à l’attrapage de grenades, en passant par le tir aux pigeons ennemis et le lancé de bagnoles sur hélicos (oui, oui, vous avez bien lu). Graphiquement, le rendu est assez propre, même si le personnage de John McClane ressemble à un pantin auquel on aurait collé la tête de Bruce Willis. Le challenge est corsé et tiendra en haleine quelques dizaines de minutes.

Graphismes: 4/5
Jouabilité: 3/5
Durée de vie: 3/5
Fun: 4/5

Pour les marketeurs
Tout comme le New York Times ou encore My Space, la Twentieth Century Fox appartient à l’énorme groupe News Corporation. Elle est l’un des six studios les plus important de l’industrie américaine du cinéma. Véritable fève de la campagne de sa communication alternative, cet advergame n’en est qu’une mince partie. L’agence suédoise Rumble a été citée dans l’article du site In Buzz We Trust, au sujet d’un street marketing assez fort, puisque quatre camionnettes explosées (au sens propre) ont été disposées et équipées de minuteurs géants. Même du côté de l’affichage la campagne est innovante, avec les affiches fumantes. Des moyens de communication bien pensés, innovants, pour une campagne aussi explosive que John McClaine himself!

Puissance : 2/5
Affinité : 4/5
Temps d’exposition : 2/5
Image de marque : 4/5

Note Globale Advergame :

A vous de jouer : Aurez-vous assez de testostérone pour égaler l’éternel John McClane?