Anyway, I got a paper back the other day from a (ugh) literature teacher who criticized an argument that I made in a history paper. I argued in one part that a large amount of Russian serfs, several hundered thousand or million in number were recruited into the Russian military over the time in which conscription was prevalent, and I made this argument in a way that left a lot of room for error since the evidence is not at all conclusive since the historians don't agree about the Russian population during that period. My professor didn't like the argument appearently because he first refuted it by stating that I didn't need all the information that I put into the argument. He then said that he felt that I "just didn't have enough information to do such a statistical analysis." And, to wrap it up, he stated that I should have just assumed the conclusion that I came to at the end of the argument anyway. So I'm sure you're thinking now the same thing that I was. "WHAT THE FUCK? HOW IS THIS GUY A PROFESSOR???" Let me just spell it out one more time. 1. I do not have enough information to make an argument in which I admit that there is not enough evidence to come to any definitive conclusion, but only a likely conclusion. 2. I don't need to put in argument all of the information that I concluded. 3. I shouldn't have made this argument in the first place, in which there is barely enough evidence to come to a definitive conclusion, and I should have just assumed the conclusions of this analysis anyway. Ergo, (using the Latin to sound haughty) I should next time assume something instead of cluttering up my paper with all sorts of evidence and other crap. And even if the evidence for belief is not definitely conclusive when argued, I should still abandon the examination of the conclusion, and just go ahead and believe it. So, when there is bearly enough evidence to believe something, it is tautalogical. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I should and get some logic professors to go down there and kick his ass around. So stupid. I have spoken with others who have had trouble with this professor. I don't think that he has any principles that guide his judgement of papers. Its pretty fucked up to see that some people who can't really judge things that well go off and get doctoral degrees.

This isn't the first time that this has happened either. I think that this is one of the most blatent marks of stupidity that I have seen from one of my professors, though. I had a professor one time that wrote a book, a hagiography (book about a saint) of sorts. The saint saw a vision of Jesus' mother Mary. He argued that the vision of Mary was actually seen by him, and we know this because he was drowning at the time, and he called out for Christ to save him. He saw Mary, not Christ, therefore, he didn't imagine it. Now, my account of this may be somewhat characatured, but not by much.

Idunno. I'm just appauled by the shit I hear sometimes. I rely on these peole for grades, and ultimately, whether or not I get into graduate school. That is pretty fucked up. I have to argue with these people some times to show them that my points are valid. I mean, it would seem that they might not be if I have to argue with them, but I do win most of those arguments. Meh. Well, they're not all bad, but there really are a few shitty professors. Well, enough for now. Time for some hard core drugs and liquor. test

And another thing. I reeeeeeeaaaaaaaly dislike Dr. Laura. She is incredibly ignorant. She dogmatically dispences morality and ethics and talks about how people should do things for god and family and shit like that. But she never says WHY these things are good. There is no basis for her system of morals. She tries to hide behind the Bible or I guess the Torah in her case, but it really doensn't hold water. The Torah doesn't tell us that it is wrong to invite your ex-girlfreind or ex-boyfriend to your wedding ceremony. It is such bullshit. She must have her doctorate in Psycology and not philosophy or ethical studies. So annoying. I think I really begin to hate her show when I am up late at night reading Aristotle or Plato and her show comes on.

You know what? You know those wwjd bracelets? "What would Jesus do?" is what they stand for. I really want one that says "wwad." What would Aristotle do? He he. I think it would really be funny if I started quoting the Nichomachean Ehtics in conversations about morals. Sighting it in the same way as people sight scripture. It would be funny but the whole point of reading things like the Nichomachean Ethics is really not to believe in what it says dogmatically, anyway, but to accept it sceptically. I think it would still be funny, though. Well, if you've read this far, I'm glad to see that you have gotten through what most probably consider to be an incredibly boring post. Anyway, back to writing or some shit like that. Yeah, almost done with my commentary on Bloom's translation of Plato's Republic. METAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But wait, we have Argentinian Christian groups monitering our site?! What the fuck is up with that? Jesus fucking Christo! (Thats Hezus for you Gringoes out there) Although I must say that I find it amusing that they believe that satan lives in people's butts and anal sex gives birth to him. HAH! That is hilarious. Granted, satan probably does live in Lioconvoy's ass, but that is such a silly concept. Wow, a lot of people have reacteed to this topic. That is fucking disterbing. To think, we get the most reaction from our audience, whoever the fuck they are, when talking about putting objects one's rectum. We have spoken about more traditional forms of sex on this site, you know, the whole penis and vagina thing. Does anyone react to that? Is this some sort of lost art? Doesn't anyone have something to say about that? Are we a world of people that just sit around cramming things in our asses? Damn. Has there even been an e-mail about foreskin? Has there? That is almost as useless a subject. Idunno.

People who read this site make me sick. What the fuck are you doing? Go CNN and read the news or something.

"Ah did not have sexual relations with that cellmate."

Anyway, I am not at all trained in the discipline of psychology, which means according to my own opinions of many involved in that particular science, that I am perfectly qualified to dispense psycological analysis. That being said, I think that Calliander is right in many ways about everyone's love for old cartoon shows. I think it is very likely that you all enjoy these shows because you enjoyed them during your childhood, and they remind you of being a kid. I think things can be good in that they are enjoyable, but I think that we can all admit that Thundercats is not a great work of art. Sorry, folks but the history of Western Literature does not progress as follows:

Homer

Horace

Milton

Shakespeare

MacGyver

I think you all know that you enjoy watching TV from back in the day, but come on. The writing was not brilliant on He-Man or Transformers. You probably just like them because they remind you of when you were a kid. This group certainly loves re-living their youth. Many of us here still spend time doing so, and some probably have not even grown that far away from it. Anyway, yeah, Thundercats does kinda suck, and I never liked Macgyver much, but I'm sure that they can be fun to watch anyway.

And what the fuck is it with those kids that light themselves on fire after watching that show "Jackass"? That is just stupidity. There is no need to censor shows like that, there is a need to have children be less stupid. Idunno. Maybe those kids should watch Scooby Doo or something.

Anyway, in response to Calliander's post about things not being as good as they used to be (I know that I risk sparking a huge debate on this subject) I must say that the Star Wars prequel sucked. I think it may have ruined my enjoyment of the Star Wars movies all together. I did enjoy the first three in the past, like any geek worth his or her salt, but now, I have lost a great deal of regard for the films as a whole. It was so bad. I could tolerate it at first, I never really thought that it was good, I thought that it was okay after first seeing it, and if there was some sort of justification for its mediocrety that came immediately after the first film, then that may have saved the story as a whole. Unfortunately, it has had time to fester and my perception of the first movie has become so bad that it has spread to my perception of the other films. Ugh. So bad. That clumsy, goofy, backwards-talking,(sorry Pappy), annoying anthropomorphic lizard. Ugh. What was Lucas thinking?! Idunno. But I think this is another case of something that we liked as kids not being so great now. Its so bad. Fuckie fuck fuck.

Alright. Now for Beanisms part 738:

"Do you take Visa here? Oh great. I'll have the tuna melt, and a Coke. What? Oh it comes with coleslaw? Ugh, no thanks. Can I get a salad instead? Great, blue cheese."

Mcgyver will be missed. I hope you can find some confort in these words, my friends.

Some of you on this site sound like conservative dumbasses talking about "whiny liberals" and such. Every one here seems to agree that the US is the most powerful nation in the world, yet you are concerned that the US will look weak if it apologizes. What a fucking crock. Its not looking strong that makes us strong, its being strong that makes us strong.

Now stop your pseudo-conservative bullshit. No one here is anti liberal, because I have seen you all smoke up while watching violent and or pornographic films and talking about how you much you love a women's right to have an abortion. You all LOVE abortion. A lot.

And if there was ever a draft I would be conscripted in a second (if I wasn't in Ecuador. So what if war is different now from what it was years ago. Many of you would shit yourselves if you had to kill someone anyway, and few people here have the discipline to deal with bootcamp.

But the news report that I just saw said that the situation has ended anyway. I guess the Chinese are done looking over the equiptment, so the troops are coming home, if the report is true. But any way, you all sound like a bunch of 75 year old men who fought in Korea or something. Its silly. Pappy is the only one here anywhere near 75. By the dog! I'm only in my fifties. You crazy gringos.