Going to Hell
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:42 amby DoomYoshi
Based on this description, I would love to go:
Before their eyes in sudden view appear
The secrets of the hoary Deep--a dark
Illimitable ocean, without bound,
Without dimension; where length, breadth, and height,
And time, and place, are lost; where eldest Night
And Chaos, ancestors of Nature, hold
Eternal anarchy, amidst the noise
Of endless wars, and by confusion stand.
For Hot, Cold, Moist, and Dry, four champions fierce,
Strive here for mastery, and to battle bring
Their embryon atoms: they around the flag
Of each his faction, in their several clans,
Light-armed or heavy, sharp, smooth, swift, or slow,
Swarm populous, unnumbered as the sands
Of Barca or Cyrene's torrid soil,
Levied to side with warring winds, and poise
Their lighter wings. To whom these most adhere
He rules a moment: Chaos umpire sits,
And by decision more embroils the fray
By which he reigns: next him, high arbiter,
Chance governs all. Into this wild Abyss,
The womb of Nature, and perhaps her grave,
Of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire,
But all these in their pregnant causes mixed
Confusedly, and which thus must ever fight,
Unless th' Almighty Maker them ordain
His dark materials to create more worlds--
Into this wild Abyss the wary Fiend
Stood on the brink of Hell and looked a while,
Pondering his voyage; for no narrow frith
He had to cross.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:39 amby Anarkistsdream
Don't worry. You're well on your way, DY.... hah
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:25 pmby oVo
Hell only exists in you mind.
IN OTHER NEWS:
The Devil tried to snatch up a few vintage Corvettes today
in Bowling Green, Kentucky. (USA)
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:43 amby Gillipig
I'd actually be positively surprised if there was a hell. Here I am thinking I won't be concious after I'm dead, but then I find out there's this place where I'll be concious, only twist is that Adolph Hitler will be continously chopping off my testicles and Genghis Khan will chop of my head.....things could be better I suppose but it's still better than I envisioned.
Or maybe hell is like being constipated for eternity......No wait, if hell is supposed to be the worst possible place, then surely I must first of all be on fire, then I imagine all my bowels must've been ripped out and/or mutilated, my eyes must've been poked out, my skin would probably have been peeled off with a potato peeler, all my bones would surely be broken and there's probably not much left of my testicles. My question is then, will I feel it when Genghis Khan has sex with my eardrums? If I don't it can't be the worst possible place, thus, I'm not in hell.... Am I then in heaven perhaps? Maybe that's what heaven is, maybe since everything is relative, not feeling Genghis Khan fucking your eardrums is like heaven compared to feeling it. Things just got deep guys.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:05 amby notyou2
Gillipig wrote:I'd actually be positively surprised if there was a hell. Here I am thinking I won't be concious after I'm dead, but then I find out there's this place where I'll be concious, only twist is that Adolph Hitler will be continously chopping off my testicles and Genghis Khan will chop of my head.....things could be better I suppose but it's still better than I envisioned.
Or maybe hell is like being constipated for eternity......No wait, if hell is supposed to be the worst possible place, then surely I must first of all be on fire, then I imagine all my bowels must've been ripped out and/or mutilated, my eyes must've been poked out, my skin would probably have been peeled off with a potato peeler, all my bones would surely be broken and there's probably not much left of my testicles. My question is then, will I feel it when Genghis Khan has sex with my eardrums? If I don't it can't be the worst possible place, thus, I'm not in hell.... Am I then in heaven perhaps? Maybe that's what heaven is, maybe since everything is relative, not feeling Genghis Khan fucking your eardrums is like heaven compared to feeling it. Things just got deep guys.
Is it an Ikea potato peeler that never worked right?
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:12 amby Gillipig
notyou2 wrote:Gillipig wrote:I'd actually be positively surprised if there was a hell. Here I am thinking I won't be concious after I'm dead, but then I find out there's this place where I'll be concious, only twist is that Adolph Hitler will be continously chopping off my testicles and Genghis Khan will chop of my head.....things could be better I suppose but it's still better than I envisioned.
Or maybe hell is like being constipated for eternity......No wait, if hell is supposed to be the worst possible place, then surely I must first of all be on fire, then I imagine all my bowels must've been ripped out and/or mutilated, my eyes must've been poked out, my skin would probably have been peeled off with a potato peeler, all my bones would surely be broken and there's probably not much left of my testicles. My question is then, will I feel it when Genghis Khan has sex with my eardrums? If I don't it can't be the worst possible place, thus, I'm not in hell.... Am I then in heaven perhaps? Maybe that's what heaven is, maybe since everything is relative, not feeling Genghis Khan fucking your eardrums is like heaven compared to feeling it. Things just got deep guys.
Is it an Ikea potato peeler that never worked right?
Are there
any working potato peelers? I have not found any, at least you can count on IKEA makig it cheap.
I'm surprised they haven't made a potato peeler that you'll have to put together yourself yet, maybe that's the next new thing, heh.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:29 amby notyou2
Gillipig wrote:notyou2 wrote:Gillipig wrote:I'd actually be positively surprised if there was a hell. Here I am thinking I won't be concious after I'm dead, but then I find out there's this place where I'll be concious, only twist is that Adolph Hitler will be continously chopping off my testicles and Genghis Khan will chop of my head.....things could be better I suppose but it's still better than I envisioned.
Or maybe hell is like being constipated for eternity......No wait, if hell is supposed to be the worst possible place, then surely I must first of all be on fire, then I imagine all my bowels must've been ripped out and/or mutilated, my eyes must've been poked out, my skin would probably have been peeled off with a potato peeler, all my bones would surely be broken and there's probably not much left of my testicles. My question is then, will I feel it when Genghis Khan has sex with my eardrums? If I don't it can't be the worst possible place, thus, I'm not in hell.... Am I then in heaven perhaps? Maybe that's what heaven is, maybe since everything is relative, not feeling Genghis Khan fucking your eardrums is like heaven compared to feeling it. Things just got deep guys.
Is it an Ikea potato peeler that never worked right?
Are there
any working potato peelers? I have not found any, at least you can count on IKEA makig it cheap.
I'm surprised they haven't made a potato peeler that you'll have to put together yourself yet, maybe that's the next new thing, heh.
I have a couple of potato peelers that work great. Pretty sure they aren't from IKEA.
On a related issue. Why does IKEA use all capitals? Is it a Swedish thing?
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:50 amby Gillipig
notyou2 wrote:Gillipig wrote:notyou2 wrote:Gillipig wrote:I'd actually be positively surprised if there was a hell. Here I am thinking I won't be concious after I'm dead, but then I find out there's this place where I'll be concious, only twist is that Adolph Hitler will be continously chopping off my testicles and Genghis Khan will chop of my head.....things could be better I suppose but it's still better than I envisioned.
Or maybe hell is like being constipated for eternity......No wait, if hell is supposed to be the worst possible place, then surely I must first of all be on fire, then I imagine all my bowels must've been ripped out and/or mutilated, my eyes must've been poked out, my skin would probably have been peeled off with a potato peeler, all my bones would surely be broken and there's probably not much left of my testicles. My question is then, will I feel it when Genghis Khan has sex with my eardrums? If I don't it can't be the worst possible place, thus, I'm not in hell.... Am I then in heaven perhaps? Maybe that's what heaven is, maybe since everything is relative, not feeling Genghis Khan fucking your eardrums is like heaven compared to feeling it. Things just got deep guys.
Is it an Ikea potato peeler that never worked right?
Are there
any working potato peelers? I have not found any, at least you can count on IKEA makig it cheap.
I'm surprised they haven't made a potato peeler that you'll have to put together yourself yet, maybe that's the next new thing, heh.
I have a couple of potato peelers that work great. Pretty sure they aren't from IKEA.
On a related issue. Why does IKEA use all capitals? Is it a Swedish thing?
Because
Ingvar
Kamprad
Elmtaryd
Agunnaryd, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Abbrevations are usually written in capitals. usa, USA, usa, USA
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:10 pmby oVo
I've never believed such a place as Hell existed,
then realized some people are living in it.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:34 pmby Gillipig
oVo wrote:I've never believed such a place as Hell existed,
then realized some people are living in it.
Some people are having their eardrums raped by Genghis Khan? If they aren't, it's not hell, just not a very pleasant place.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:00 pmby notyou2
The store isn't necessarily hell, but the parking lot is, especially if you are a monkey in a winter coat.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:54 amby Gillipig
Genghis Khan is in the parking lot raping customers ears? Wow, america is fucked up!!
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:42 pmby Gillipig
I understood everything about the verdict except the part where they said she somehow owed them $83,000 just because she lost the trial. What the f*ck? She'd get away easier if she killed the monkey! How is that even remotely justified? They were so offended by being sued they all shit their pants worth a total $83,000? I see no other explanation.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:56 pmby BigBallinStalin
Gillipig wrote:I understood everything about the verdict except the part where they said she somehow owed them $83,000 just because she lost the trial. What the f*ck? She'd get away easier if she killed the monkey! How is that even remotely justified? They were so offended by being sued they all shit their pants worth a total $83,000? I see no other explanation.
Some of $83k covers the Monkey Sanctuary's legal outlays. The other is to punish the 'monkey mom' for suing the Monkey Sanctuary, which acquired the stolen monkey. The law probably favored the Sanctuary because of some clause about wild animals, but how 'wild' was her monkey? I dunno. The ruling seems unjust though. A government agency picks up her monkey (okay) then gives the stolen animal to the Sanctuary (not okay). The Sanctuary return its stolen property (not okay).
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:05 pmby Gillipig
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gillipig wrote:I understood everything about the verdict except the part where they said she somehow owed them $83,000 just because she lost the trial. What the f*ck? She'd get away easier if she killed the monkey! How is that even remotely justified? They were so offended by being sued they all shit their pants worth a total $83,000? I see no other explanation.
Some of $83k covers the Monkey Sanctuary's legal outlays. The other is to punish the 'monkey mom' for suing the Monkey Sanctuary, which acquired the stolen monkey. The law probably favored the Sanctuary because of some clause about wild animals, but how 'wild' was her monkey? I dunno. The ruling seems unjust though. A government agency picks up her monkey (okay) then gives the stolen animal to the Sanctuary (not okay). The Sanctuary return its stolen property (not okay).
Covering legal outlays is okay but the notion of punishing her for sueing them when they practically stole her monkey is pretty outrageous. Are we all supposed to take for given that when our pet gets lost and we find it in someone elses possesion it's automatically "theirs" now? I can understand they decided that the sanctuary should keep the monkey but it's by no means a clear cut case, and punishing her for having the temerity of pressing her rights is just ridiculous.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:41 pmby notyou2
I think the $38,000.00 was a fine for displaying her monkey in public.
Perhaps Andy knows more on this than I do.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:30 pmby Dukasaur
Phatscotty wrote:See You in Hell
What does that have to do with her monkey? Do try not to derail threads all the time.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:35 pmby BigBallinStalin
Gillipig wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Gillipig wrote:I understood everything about the verdict except the part where they said she somehow owed them $83,000 just because she lost the trial. What the f*ck? She'd get away easier if she killed the monkey! How is that even remotely justified? They were so offended by being sued they all shit their pants worth a total $83,000? I see no other explanation.
Some of $83k covers the Monkey Sanctuary's legal outlays. The other is to punish the 'monkey mom' for suing the Monkey Sanctuary, which acquired the stolen monkey. The law probably favored the Sanctuary because of some clause about wild animals, but how 'wild' was her monkey? I dunno. The ruling seems unjust though. A government agency picks up her monkey (okay) then gives the stolen animal to the Sanctuary (not okay). The Sanctuary return its stolen property (not okay).
Covering legal outlays is okay but the notion of punishing her for sueing them when they practically stole her monkey is pretty outrageous. Are we all supposed to take for given that when our pet gets lost and we find it in someone elses possesion it's automatically "theirs" now? I can understand they decided that the sanctuary should keep the monkey but it's by no means a clear cut case, and punishing her for having the temerity of pressing her rights is just ridiculous.
I agree. It only discourages people from pressing claims against state organizations--or organizations which serve a 'public good'. Punitive damages is a well-intended idea (i.e. charging people extra for frivolous claims), but from what I know, her claim isn't frivolous. It's a disgusting ruling.
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:08 amby Phatscotty
Dukasaur wrote:Phatscotty wrote:See You in Hell
What does that have to do with her monkey? Do try not to derail threads all the time.
oh...it has EVERYTHING to do with the monkey!
Re: Going to Hell
Posted:
Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:45 amby Gillipig
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gillipig wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Gillipig wrote:I understood everything about the verdict except the part where they said she somehow owed them $83,000 just because she lost the trial. What the f*ck? She'd get away easier if she killed the monkey! How is that even remotely justified? They were so offended by being sued they all shit their pants worth a total $83,000? I see no other explanation.
Some of $83k covers the Monkey Sanctuary's legal outlays. The other is to punish the 'monkey mom' for suing the Monkey Sanctuary, which acquired the stolen monkey. The law probably favored the Sanctuary because of some clause about wild animals, but how 'wild' was her monkey? I dunno. The ruling seems unjust though. A government agency picks up her monkey (okay) then gives the stolen animal to the Sanctuary (not okay). The Sanctuary return its stolen property (not okay).
Covering legal outlays is okay but the notion of punishing her for sueing them when they practically stole her monkey is pretty outrageous. Are we all supposed to take for given that when our pet gets lost and we find it in someone elses possesion it's automatically "theirs" now? I can understand they decided that the sanctuary should keep the monkey but it's by no means a clear cut case, and punishing her for having the temerity of pressing her rights is just ridiculous.
I agree. It only discourages people from pressing claims against state organizations--or organizations which serve a 'public good'. Punitive damages is a well-intended idea (i.e. charging people extra for frivolous claims), but from what I know, her claim isn't frivolous. It's a disgusting ruling.
Not sure I'd call it a disgusting ruling. I mean if someone would argue that the monkey is happier living among other monkeys in a sanctuary, than with a single, slighty crazy lady who calls herself the monkeys "mom", then I'd probably agree. I'm not against the verdict other than the outrageous monetary repercussions that she's forced to pay for losig the trial. And I would agree that it is sending completely wrong messages to people who are being questionably treated by the goverment/powerful organisations. This case is basically telling people to not use their legal rights because if they lose, they'll be forced into economic bankruptcy. A very nice and subtle way of telling people to shut up and obey.
