What does it take to drive a man to kill? Are some just born evil and capable to kill, or does it take an experience or abuse that screws a person up psychologically? Maybe still a person can just enjoy the thrill they get from the stalking, the watching, and the killing.
A man sat in a closet located in a small room. The room was plainly furnished with nothing in it but the wardrobe that he sat in now. Through a crack he could see a plain wooden framed bed made with plain cotton sheets, and a brown blanket. The room did have a window on the north wall that provided most of the light for the dark room.
The mans breathing was calm although his mind was racing you could see the excitement in his blood shot, cold eyes. His hair was a greasy black; his pencil thin fingers were shaking. It was evident that he hadn’t slept in days let alone had the comfort of a shower he only watched until he knew every habit and second of the victims life. And when it was time he crept into this tiny room, which was no doubt the opportune place for the kill to take place. All that was left was to wait out the last seconds before the kill.
A door shut nice and quiet, his hands stop shaking immediately. Could it be him… it had to be him, it’s the right time. The sound was so close by. He held his breath, so not to make a sound; he had to wait a few more seconds, maybe even a minute to be safe. He waited with great self control, although he was dieing from anticipation he forced himself to wait the final seconds.
Finally, he opened the door of the closet, just a little at a time, keeping the monk in his sight the whole time. He took his time with the door; he had plenty of time as the monk prayed. The door was now open enough for him to climb out quietly and with ease. He made his way over to the bed with slow, deliberate, quiet steps. He pulled out a knife polished and freshly sharpened. The excitement almost overcame him as he crept even closer to the kill. He was inches away now blade ready to slice the monks neck clean. He grabbed the monk’s smooth bald head and wrenched it back. He could see the utter terror in the brown eyes of his victim. He let a small, cruel smile of pleasure creep across his lips.
An elder monk of the monastery was amazed. He never thought that when he opened that door he would see such a gruesome sight as the limp body of a poor young monk hanging from the ceiling, by his feet. His upside down face had the emotion of pain all over it. His eyes were missing and his mouth was open. From these holes shined an eerie light, much like a jack-a-lantern. He backed out of the rooms and threw up for a time before he was able to continue to look at the terrible sight. When he got his sickness under control he noticed chunks in the thick blood. It took a long time for him to realize that the head had been hollowed out and what lay on the floor was the dead monks brain matter. The elder monk stumbled and fainted right there in the brain and blood mixture. He would not be discovered until the killer was long gone.
What makes a killer kill? How many people have to die before a serial killer’s thirst for death is quenched? Can psychology cure the crazy mind of a killer, or once a person starts down that path is it impossible to fix their terrible mind? Some say that they kill because they have to, but is this true, or are they just out for the thrill of the kill.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
What makes a joke funny?
What makes a joke funny…? I don’t know but it gave me an excuse to look up funny jokes and write a nonsense speech on it. Ok so let’s start off with a good one.
A French fry walks into the bar and says to the bartender “Hey , could I get a beer please?”
The bartender looks at him shaking his head and said “No, we don’t serve food here”
Ok so let’s see here why does such a joke make us laugh. its really just stupid and if any of u laughed I feel sorry for you. But its wording might not make u laugh but u just think about the irony if you that he is food and in some bars they don’t serve food. On to the next ridiculous joke that you still probably wont find that funny.
What was the Pilgrims' favorite dance?
(The Plymouth Rock.)
Haha that was good one man I’m diein’ from laughter over here no seriously obviously the P.O.N. or Play On Words is what makes this joke so funny. Plymouth rock as you should all no is where the pilgrims first landed on the new world but rock is also a type of music and dance hence a ridiculous stupid p.on. Now on the every popular ever funny spelling jokes.
What letters did the man recite to his car when he ran out of gas?
( O-I-C-U-R-M-T )
Ok people ok people I know it is hard to stop laughing after that hilarious joke. The reason the joke is so funny (to those that find these ridiculous jokes funny) is because of when you read each letter individually you get a whole funny sentence. It is really just amazing what people think up. Next we have the Quotes.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Said by unknown
We find this funny just because it was just funny come on. lets try another though
Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.
Unknown
The funny thing about this is that its completely true it takes a real philosopher to think that up. But what makes these so funny is probably we all can experience them at some time at times we stand up for what we believe for and can be called insane, but would we have it any other way. And sometimes we just don’t feel unique there funny cause they relate to us.
Now I would like to do some dirty jokes. Just kidding Mrs. Byrely calm down. But I am going to do some great chuck Norris Jokes.
Boogyman checks his closet for Chuck Norris every night
It is said that looking into Chuck Norris' eyes will reveal your future. Unfortunately, everybody's future is always the same: death by a roundhouse-kick to the face.
In the medical community, death is referred to as "Chuck Norris Disease"
Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross. Just never his own.
Funny no hilaurious those are and those are just funny because it makes fun of a certain person these are probably the best jokes known to man they are also the most common if you think about it you say one every day Some call it bullying others just call it joking around but they are the best if u are just joking around.
And that’s it people hope you found it funny and I hope you didn’t learn anything.
A French fry walks into the bar and says to the bartender “Hey , could I get a beer please?”
The bartender looks at him shaking his head and said “No, we don’t serve food here”
Ok so let’s see here why does such a joke make us laugh. its really just stupid and if any of u laughed I feel sorry for you. But its wording might not make u laugh but u just think about the irony if you that he is food and in some bars they don’t serve food. On to the next ridiculous joke that you still probably wont find that funny.
What was the Pilgrims' favorite dance?
(The Plymouth Rock.)
Haha that was good one man I’m diein’ from laughter over here no seriously obviously the P.O.N. or Play On Words is what makes this joke so funny. Plymouth rock as you should all no is where the pilgrims first landed on the new world but rock is also a type of music and dance hence a ridiculous stupid p.on. Now on the every popular ever funny spelling jokes.
What letters did the man recite to his car when he ran out of gas?
( O-I-C-U-R-M-T )
Ok people ok people I know it is hard to stop laughing after that hilarious joke. The reason the joke is so funny (to those that find these ridiculous jokes funny) is because of when you read each letter individually you get a whole funny sentence. It is really just amazing what people think up. Next we have the Quotes.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Said by unknown
We find this funny just because it was just funny come on. lets try another though
Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.
Unknown
The funny thing about this is that its completely true it takes a real philosopher to think that up. But what makes these so funny is probably we all can experience them at some time at times we stand up for what we believe for and can be called insane, but would we have it any other way. And sometimes we just don’t feel unique there funny cause they relate to us.
Now I would like to do some dirty jokes. Just kidding Mrs. Byrely calm down. But I am going to do some great chuck Norris Jokes.
Boogyman checks his closet for Chuck Norris every night
It is said that looking into Chuck Norris' eyes will reveal your future. Unfortunately, everybody's future is always the same: death by a roundhouse-kick to the face.
In the medical community, death is referred to as "Chuck Norris Disease"
Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross. Just never his own.
Funny no hilaurious those are and those are just funny because it makes fun of a certain person these are probably the best jokes known to man they are also the most common if you think about it you say one every day Some call it bullying others just call it joking around but they are the best if u are just joking around.
And that’s it people hope you found it funny and I hope you didn’t learn anything.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
that the matrix wasn't so far off
Thank you to Dan Brown who brought this to my attention. He's one of my favorite people to watch on YouTube. To view his channel click here > www.youtube.com/user/pogobat
His video the simulation hypothesis sparked my own feelings on the simulation hypothesis.
What is simulation hypothesis? Have you ever played the game the sims... Well that is, at the base, what the simulation hypothesis is, except very different. See people that understand the simulation hypothesis believe that one day we humans will have the technology to build a society like the sims that can live completely on its own. Im not going to deny that we may someday have this technology. Heck we may not even be that far off. We can simulate space we can simulate gaming, where gamers play in a virtual world. It is very possible someday we will have the technology, the computing power to do this. The type of computing power need to duplicate the physics that go on in our daily life would have to be amazing, but not completely unbelievable.
The matrix... the thing about this is... if we can build such a universe, whats to say that someone else hasn't already. Im say that maybe we are a similar simulated universe. That has to be a possibility however unlikely. If that is a possibility then it is also possible that the universe that created us could also be a simulation. Do you see where I'm going with this? It could go on forever. the simulation becomes the creator, creating another simulation then that simulation creates another sim, which in turn simulates another universe simulation. ON and ON.
So what does it mean? In reality ( haha I mean in simulation) nothing changes we still exist we still feel. Not even religion changes to me. Some people would say that this means that there is no god. But really something still had to create the first universe. So that doesn't change. What does change is that our life is dependent on the simulation that created us. When that world ends than so will we. We can't live without the virtual reality computer simulating our every physical property. This fact to me proves the hypothesis wrong. Our universe has been going on for a long time. I don't even know how long I can't remember. If we have proof that our universe is that old than how old is the other universe that created us. It hasn't been destroyed yet that seems unbelievable to me. Still pretty cool to think about.
Tell me what you think in a comment.
His video the simulation hypothesis sparked my own feelings on the simulation hypothesis.
What is simulation hypothesis? Have you ever played the game the sims... Well that is, at the base, what the simulation hypothesis is, except very different. See people that understand the simulation hypothesis believe that one day we humans will have the technology to build a society like the sims that can live completely on its own. Im not going to deny that we may someday have this technology. Heck we may not even be that far off. We can simulate space we can simulate gaming, where gamers play in a virtual world. It is very possible someday we will have the technology, the computing power to do this. The type of computing power need to duplicate the physics that go on in our daily life would have to be amazing, but not completely unbelievable.
The matrix... the thing about this is... if we can build such a universe, whats to say that someone else hasn't already. Im say that maybe we are a similar simulated universe. That has to be a possibility however unlikely. If that is a possibility then it is also possible that the universe that created us could also be a simulation. Do you see where I'm going with this? It could go on forever. the simulation becomes the creator, creating another simulation then that simulation creates another sim, which in turn simulates another universe simulation. ON and ON.
So what does it mean? In reality ( haha I mean in simulation) nothing changes we still exist we still feel. Not even religion changes to me. Some people would say that this means that there is no god. But really something still had to create the first universe. So that doesn't change. What does change is that our life is dependent on the simulation that created us. When that world ends than so will we. We can't live without the virtual reality computer simulating our every physical property. This fact to me proves the hypothesis wrong. Our universe has been going on for a long time. I don't even know how long I can't remember. If we have proof that our universe is that old than how old is the other universe that created us. It hasn't been destroyed yet that seems unbelievable to me. Still pretty cool to think about.
Tell me what you think in a comment.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
that the books got better but I guess they couldn't have gotten much worse
They really did (speaking of the 3 and 4th) and as a negative (but truthful) critic of the books i will be the first to say that but are they perfect no.
My problems actually come more from structure problems rather than from any plot problems like they have in the past.
the prologues have become such a hassle. They really are unnecessary it is a cool way to start a book but i really dont see much of a point for them in this series and though I have never liked them, it was really bad in the last. I think she was stretching for reasons to use this unique technique of hers.
Then the reading from Jacobs point of view. Dont like it. It was alright at first and nice to see the type of sacrifice he made from his own eyes but a good author probably could have found a better way to pass that time. Heck I would have went from Edwards point of view if I was going with any ones he could have seen it through Jacobs eyes and we would have seen his own pain. But I would have liked her to keep it the same as she has in all the other books. She hasn't went to other peoples perspectives thus far she shouldn't have done it now. It was the only time i felt the book actually dragged on.
To the actual plot. She actually kept the excitement going there were few boring spots in both. She had good plot twists I guess. They were good but the problem is I saw them all coming every damn one. One would think that that would make the stories boring. But in truth tho I knew what was going to happen a part of me wondered how they would take place. Even the baby called it! The problem doesn't lie in the fact that I could call every single plot turn it because that is one of the ways I would have written the book ( I also have another but its truthfully not as good) so I cant fault her for her predictabilitys instead I am going to complain about her foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is a great technique it builds curiosity and in that way suspense. But she over used it to the point that I knew what was going to happen because its the only way the book can lead.
It was better these two were good, completely different books from the first two. They had suspense, romance and some action. Actually both had climax's! thats a change. But just curiosity did everyone catch the 3rds climax. With so much suspense building up to the newborn fight that I expected the climax to come in a action form. But instead I think it was when Bella recognizes her need for Jacob. It was unneeded conflict. What would have been better is if she would have called him back then through her regret of hurting him. kissed him on the cheek and told him to fight and be careful like a friend. and he realizes that he loves her the same way as a friend. A protector. That would be characterization.
I wish Alice would have bitten Bella. That was what was supposed to happen. I knew it wasn't going to after the wedding. But she foreshadowed it and then sort of unforeshadowed it. That was the only loose end. And it doesnt bother me that bad but I think it would have added for some reason.
My problems actually come more from structure problems rather than from any plot problems like they have in the past.
the prologues have become such a hassle. They really are unnecessary it is a cool way to start a book but i really dont see much of a point for them in this series and though I have never liked them, it was really bad in the last. I think she was stretching for reasons to use this unique technique of hers.
Then the reading from Jacobs point of view. Dont like it. It was alright at first and nice to see the type of sacrifice he made from his own eyes but a good author probably could have found a better way to pass that time. Heck I would have went from Edwards point of view if I was going with any ones he could have seen it through Jacobs eyes and we would have seen his own pain. But I would have liked her to keep it the same as she has in all the other books. She hasn't went to other peoples perspectives thus far she shouldn't have done it now. It was the only time i felt the book actually dragged on.
To the actual plot. She actually kept the excitement going there were few boring spots in both. She had good plot twists I guess. They were good but the problem is I saw them all coming every damn one. One would think that that would make the stories boring. But in truth tho I knew what was going to happen a part of me wondered how they would take place. Even the baby called it! The problem doesn't lie in the fact that I could call every single plot turn it because that is one of the ways I would have written the book ( I also have another but its truthfully not as good) so I cant fault her for her predictabilitys instead I am going to complain about her foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is a great technique it builds curiosity and in that way suspense. But she over used it to the point that I knew what was going to happen because its the only way the book can lead.
It was better these two were good, completely different books from the first two. They had suspense, romance and some action. Actually both had climax's! thats a change. But just curiosity did everyone catch the 3rds climax. With so much suspense building up to the newborn fight that I expected the climax to come in a action form. But instead I think it was when Bella recognizes her need for Jacob. It was unneeded conflict. What would have been better is if she would have called him back then through her regret of hurting him. kissed him on the cheek and told him to fight and be careful like a friend. and he realizes that he loves her the same way as a friend. A protector. That would be characterization.
I wish Alice would have bitten Bella. That was what was supposed to happen. I knew it wasn't going to after the wedding. But she foreshadowed it and then sort of unforeshadowed it. That was the only loose end. And it doesnt bother me that bad but I think it would have added for some reason.
Friday, January 1, 2010
that technology is the best thing ever!!!!
I have wasted my whole existence rejecting the need for new technology. Denying it with "i dont need that" or "thats just unnecessary." Im not blind to the advancements though I know how to work most things fairly well, and I new the newest toys like the touch screen computers and the new smart phones such as the iphone and the droid. I just never thought these things were needed in everyday life.
But just yesterday I was awakened. I got a new phone (a rogue) and I made my mom get me Internet capabilities because how dumb is having a phone that can get Internet access and not using it? And would you believe it I havent found a place that I cant get on facebook, twitter, youtube, and google! I have now decided that i cant live without it! I have fallen in love! Im worried for my battery because it seems to die quickly... but how can I blame it I spend so much time on it that it hardly gets time to be off. Even right now im contemplating whether I can save this and pick up where I left off on my new phone. I shall never be out of the loop or bored again!!!!!
In a comment below tell me what I should name my new phone.
But just yesterday I was awakened. I got a new phone (a rogue) and I made my mom get me Internet capabilities because how dumb is having a phone that can get Internet access and not using it? And would you believe it I havent found a place that I cant get on facebook, twitter, youtube, and google! I have now decided that i cant live without it! I have fallen in love! Im worried for my battery because it seems to die quickly... but how can I blame it I spend so much time on it that it hardly gets time to be off. Even right now im contemplating whether I can save this and pick up where I left off on my new phone. I shall never be out of the loop or bored again!!!!!
In a comment below tell me what I should name my new phone.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
that if it was an official vote I would vote edward over jacob.
Just finished the book today... I found it mostly boring... It took me forever to read and as a result it postponed the time I got to spend on another book which I would have liked to read more. But I have an obligation to my blog readers to critic New Moon.
Some think that the beginning is SO sad... I do not. I found that the way bella acted was pathetic and was almost overly dramatized. I got what stephenie wanted to portray and where she was going with it but come on. It made the book longer and it bored me. It sadly took up the whole book!!! the only good thing about the first wasted 400 pages is it gave more insight into Jacob sparking an added factor to the twilight series.
Then you have the climax... another disappointmenting climax... if you remember my last blog on twilight then you remember what I thought of the first one. I believed it was skipped. That it truly had no climax. This time I thought that the climax wasn't the type of climax that I as a reader wanted. Look at it from my eyes, thus far the whole book has been complete waste. Nothing but oh Im sad, jacob is so nice, I wanna hear edwards voice. No action. And these books are supposed to be a mix of action and romance. Therefore the Climax should had some sort of action pacted fight or run for there lives before the Vulcari caught them. Instead we got more romance. The most action was Bella running to save Edward, not very much. And that was done to set up the romance to follow. No real action.
Now to the good parts of the book. The book ended farely solid I thought. Good rap up of all the plot line (though that easy to do when the plot line is as dull as this ones was). The best part of this book is it continues the mystery that surrounds this series. The only reason I'm going to continue reading is because I wanna know more about why none of the special powers work on her. What will her power be when she turns? (I know she will have one) I also want to know more about the Vulcari. This books mystery was the only good thing about it.
As for the real issue.... Jacob or Edward... I vote Jacob. Over all I like vampires better, they are so much more refined and I think head on head a vampire would win in a fight. and I had a choice I wouldn't sleep either. But I picked Jacob because, (and I realize that their relationship isn't real) Bella's and Edward's relationship is based soli on obsession and lust. Bella is way to obsessesed with Edward. And dont give me that they are in love crap. The way Bella reacts is nothing but obsession. I think that its due some sort of need for edward and once bella is a vampire she should lose that. If it were my books I would make that happen she looses that he is so pretty feeling she gets, her heart stops not breathing every time they kiss. Futhermore if it were my series I would make her go back to Jacob after she looses interest in Edward it would be a classic enemies fall in love ending(meaning werewolves and vampires being enemys not Bella and Jacob). But thats just me. therefore I like Edward more as a person he reminds me more of myself but I think Jacob is better for Bella. If it were a fair fight and Edward didn't have the stupid vampire pull he has on Bella jacob would obviously win.
For Critic on the movie check out the side tab>>>
Some think that the beginning is SO sad... I do not. I found that the way bella acted was pathetic and was almost overly dramatized. I got what stephenie wanted to portray and where she was going with it but come on. It made the book longer and it bored me. It sadly took up the whole book!!! the only good thing about the first wasted 400 pages is it gave more insight into Jacob sparking an added factor to the twilight series.
Then you have the climax... another disappointmenting climax... if you remember my last blog on twilight then you remember what I thought of the first one. I believed it was skipped. That it truly had no climax. This time I thought that the climax wasn't the type of climax that I as a reader wanted. Look at it from my eyes, thus far the whole book has been complete waste. Nothing but oh Im sad, jacob is so nice, I wanna hear edwards voice. No action. And these books are supposed to be a mix of action and romance. Therefore the Climax should had some sort of action pacted fight or run for there lives before the Vulcari caught them. Instead we got more romance. The most action was Bella running to save Edward, not very much. And that was done to set up the romance to follow. No real action.
Now to the good parts of the book. The book ended farely solid I thought. Good rap up of all the plot line (though that easy to do when the plot line is as dull as this ones was). The best part of this book is it continues the mystery that surrounds this series. The only reason I'm going to continue reading is because I wanna know more about why none of the special powers work on her. What will her power be when she turns? (I know she will have one) I also want to know more about the Vulcari. This books mystery was the only good thing about it.
As for the real issue.... Jacob or Edward... I vote Jacob. Over all I like vampires better, they are so much more refined and I think head on head a vampire would win in a fight. and I had a choice I wouldn't sleep either. But I picked Jacob because, (and I realize that their relationship isn't real) Bella's and Edward's relationship is based soli on obsession and lust. Bella is way to obsessesed with Edward. And dont give me that they are in love crap. The way Bella reacts is nothing but obsession. I think that its due some sort of need for edward and once bella is a vampire she should lose that. If it were my books I would make that happen she looses that he is so pretty feeling she gets, her heart stops not breathing every time they kiss. Futhermore if it were my series I would make her go back to Jacob after she looses interest in Edward it would be a classic enemies fall in love ending(meaning werewolves and vampires being enemys not Bella and Jacob). But thats just me. therefore I like Edward more as a person he reminds me more of myself but I think Jacob is better for Bella. If it were a fair fight and Edward didn't have the stupid vampire pull he has on Bella jacob would obviously win.
For Critic on the movie check out the side tab>>>
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
that there is nothing like a brownie to make you want some milk
Today a question as serious as any was brought up. What is the difference between a cake and a brownie. I understand that there is a fine line but I would like to know where this fine line has been drawn. After the question was brought up by a friend of mine and some brain storming took place. We decided that there are certain factors that one must consider.
1. the vessel it was cooked in. obviously a cake is thicker than a brownie.
2. the ingredients. I was shocked but I found out that some don't consider a brownie to be a brownie unless it has pudding. just like I said adds density and a wetness.
3. the texture. a cake would be more airy, I believe, than the denser brownie. A brownie would also be more moist
4. the frosting or lack there of. I actually do not believe that brownies should have frosting. First of all the denseness of a brownie and the frosting would make a true brownie to heavy and its not traditional.... but maybe this is to trivial.
I looked at this after I wrote this and just add it in as a footnote but note that I was close with the 3 thing.
According to Kevin Weeks: "The critical difference is that brownies are unleavened-- they contain no baking powder or soda. The lacking of leavening, and minimal amounts of flour results in a denser, chewy bar."
1. the vessel it was cooked in. obviously a cake is thicker than a brownie.
2. the ingredients. I was shocked but I found out that some don't consider a brownie to be a brownie unless it has pudding. just like I said adds density and a wetness.
3. the texture. a cake would be more airy, I believe, than the denser brownie. A brownie would also be more moist
4. the frosting or lack there of. I actually do not believe that brownies should have frosting. First of all the denseness of a brownie and the frosting would make a true brownie to heavy and its not traditional.... but maybe this is to trivial.
I looked at this after I wrote this and just add it in as a footnote but note that I was close with the 3 thing.
According to Kevin Weeks: "The critical difference is that brownies are unleavened-- they contain no baking powder or soda. The lacking of leavening, and minimal amounts of flour results in a denser, chewy bar."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
