bling bat

Motorcycle scam bs at Club? continued.

2006-10-27T21:38:35Z

I think that's gonna be the end of the Tiny motorcycle tip over incident.
I talked to Tiny on wednesday night, after speaking to a handfull of auto claim adjusters with American Family. Every one of em told me there was zero chance anybody could find me liable. THey said to stick to my guns, if anything even happend.

It was pretty obvious he was just trying to scam money outta me.. but here's what happend when I spoke to him at the bar.

Welp, I got there before Tiny.. I was chattin with the door guy as he walked in, so as he passed.. I slipped out and took some photos of his bike:

NO dent on the gas tank whatsoever.. He has a leather tank pad, and there was quite a bit of pait rubbed off from where the seam on the pad touched the tank. Also, just to be sure, i took shots of his saddle bags, where I'm pretty sure I left a 2" scratch from my rear shock bobbin. That's the smallest gauge on them... I got shots of all the other dings on his bike.

Then I went in and talked to him.

Me: Well.. here's how I'm gonna handle it. Make a claim to your insurance company, and if they need me, they can call me. You got my number, you know it's legit since you called me on it.

Tiny: *taking out a day planner* Put your info on here.

Me: *I put my phone number in it (which he's already got)* What other info do you need?

Tiny: your number and address

Me: Have your adjuster call me after you make the claim, and i'll give it to him.

Tiny: *pissed off stare*

Me: I figure this way, since we both go here, it'll save the drama. This way it'll be your insurance company and me, instead of you and me, that way we got no beef. Your insurance company will pay you then they'll deal with me so you don't have to. Tho I'll be honest, because there were whitnesses that it got pushed over, and the bike fell opposite the kickstand, I'm not gonna be held liable. BUT, you'll still get paid from the insurance co. (the whole time I know if they sent an adjuster out to assess the damage they'd laugh at him.)

Tiny: *looking pissed off still* *puts up his hand like he's done*

Me: See ya.

There's no way he's gonna file a claim as far as I can tell.

Fk him... obviously just trying to get some cash from me, or get my home address so he can fk with my bike... DENIED. I win.

Motorcycle bullshit

2006-10-23T21:42:50Z

Ok, so.. the night of the KMFDM concert I go to club and park my bike outside. I end up goin home to pick up my pool cue, and 2 guys are parking on bikes. I let em know i'm takin off and one can have my spot. I come back and they parked up the whole frigging front (they both have old bikes.. one harley w/ side car (owner's name is Tiny, he's around 400lb+ harley guy, other guy same deal, tho I think he had a BMW, either way... w/e) I park and go inside.. Later that night I'm shooting pool and I hear: "Hey! Who's got a green Kawi(kawasaki)?! I look up, "It's mine." The huge fat harley guy replies with "GET YOUR PIECE OF SHIT OFF OF MY HARLEY!" I'm like wtf? (I'm drunk as fuck now). HE repeats himself.. I instantly get fucking mad as hell and walk out side.. followed by about everybody that knows me at club. Sure as hell, my bike is leaning on his Harley, on the side OPPOSITE the kickstand, which means someone either hit it, or pushed it over. I find out from the douchebag kids outside that indeed some drunk guy stumbled into it with enough force to push it from it's kickstand over the other side onto this guys bike (my bike w/ a full tank is over 550lbs.. he had to really shove it). Nobody fking stopped him, and he went inside. I find this out and go look for him... cause i'm going to fucking kill him. Well, by the time I get a description, I'm told he's left. (Which turns out to be a good thing, as there were 2 undercover cops at club, and i'd have gone to jail for assault atleast)

Anyway I pull my bike back over onto it's kickstand, and look the guys bike over, there's a small scratch on one of the back bags. I'm like, I know the bartender, he works/owns highway design.. a custom motorcycle paint shop.. (Shawn the bartender, btw.. who gives me a nod like he'll take care of it) Keep in mind I'm drunk, so I tell Tiny I'll take care of him and to just chill out. He FINALLY chills out.. and everything is fine (zero cosmetic damage to my bike, HOWEVER the engine started misfiring that night and I havn't been able to ride it for 2.5 weeks because of it. I just finally fixed it last saturday).

Well, I get a call from Tiny on friday telling me he just noticed a dent on his gas tank that he wants fixed/replaced w/e and he don't care about the scratched bag. I'm like well I'm at work atm, so I can't really talk. I'm going to go meet him at Club on wednesday to discus his bike.

Problem is the more I think about it, the more I'm like Fuck him and his bike. It's not my, or my bikes fault it got pushed over. Also, he waited 2 and a half weeks to call me? wtf is that? He /just/ noticed a dent in the gastank? I can promise you I'd notice that shit right away.

Anyway.. we'll see what happens. Just curious on others take on the situation. Do you really think I should be responsible?

Also, thinking about it, there is no way anything on my bike could have even touched the tank in retrospect... We'll see, i'll take a look at it on wendesday

shut the fuck up!

2006-09-20T16:20:35Z

Saturday, 16th September 2006
Lollipop idea to shush yobs
Brian Lashley

QUIET: Lollipops.POLICE have revealed their latest weapon in the fight against booze-fuelled crime in Manchester - a lollipop.

Officers plan to hand out the 1p lollipops to revellers as they leave city centre pubs and clubs in the hope they will silence the yobs.

Up to 50,000 of the sweets will be distributed around the busiest nightspots on weekends in the run-up to Christmas. Trial schemes have found that drinkers given lollipops are less likely to cause a disturbance or get into fights as they leave nightspots.

Safety warnings are to be written on to the wrappers and the sticks will be made from compressed cardboard designed to collapse in the event of someone falling flat on their face.

Under the plan, the lollipops will be handed out by community support officers and may also be issued to door staff at some venues.

Sponsorship

The scheme will be paid for by sponsorship.

The idea was successfully tested in Manchester where lollipops were handed out to late-night revellers at bus stops and it has also been copied in Scotland.

Pc Stuart Pizzey, Greater Manchester Police crime reduction adviser, said the idea may seem like a gimmick but it carries a serious message.

He said: "The idea sounds barmy but what we found was that when people come out of a nightclub, and have had a little bit too much, there's a tendency to shout and swear.

"If they are sucking a lollipop it's a bit quieter and it can defuse a situation.

"It is an inventive way of reducing verbal aggression that results in harm, crime and violence and it makes people feel good while conveying a message in a creative way.

"We are not being naïve, saying lollipops are going to reduce crime. What we are doing is getting the message across in an original manner."

Phil Burke, spokesman for the Manchester Pub and Club Network, said: "We fully support the idea. The police and licensees have worked hard to make Manchester a safe place to visit and anything that helps to keep it that way is welcome."

finally...

2006-09-05T16:18:09Z

Nice little article this week...

The New Naysayers

In the midst of religious revival, three scholars argue that atheism is smarter.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek

Americans answered the atrocities of September 11, overwhelmingly, with faith. Attacked in the name of God, they turned to God for comfort; in the week after the attacks, nearly 70 percent said they were praying more than usual. Confronted by a hatred that seemed inexplicable, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proclaimed that God was mad at America because it harbored feminists, gays and civil libertarians. Sam Harris, then a 34-year-old graduate student in neuroscience, had a different reaction. On Sept. 12, he began a book. If, he reasoned, young men were slaughtering people in the name of religion—something that had been going on since long before 2001, of course—then perhaps the problem was religion itself. The book would be called "The End of Faith," which to most Americans probably sounds like a lament. To Harris it is something to be encouraged.

This was not a message most Americans wanted to hear, before or after 9/11. Atheists "are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," according to a study by Penny Edgell, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota. In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, Americans said they believed in God by a margin of 92 to 6—only 2 percent answered "don't know"—and only 37 percent said they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president. (That's down from 49 percent in a 1999 Gallup poll—which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.) "The End of Faith" struggled to find a publisher, and even after Norton agreed to bring it out in 2004, Harris says there were editors who refused to come to meetings with him. But after winning the PEN/Martha Albrand award for nonfiction, the book sold 270,000 copies. Harris's scathing "Letter to a Christian Nation" will be published this month with a press run of 150,000. Someone is listening, even if he is mostly preaching, one might say, to the unconverted.

This year also saw the publication in February of "Breaking the Spell," by the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, which asks how and why religions became ubiquitous in human society. The obvious answer—"Because they're true"—is foreclosed, Dennett says, by the fact that they are by and large mutually incompatible. Even to study "religion as a natural phenomenon," the subtitle of Dennett's book, is to deprive it of much of its mystery and power. And next month the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene") weighs in with "The God Delusion," a book that extends an argument he advanced in the days after 9/11. After hearing once too often that "[t]o blame the attacks on Islam is like blaming Christianity for the fighting in Northern Ireland," Dawkins responded: Precisely. "It's time to get angry," he wrote, "and not only with Islam."

Dawkins and Harris are not writing polite demurrals to the time-honored beliefs of billions; they are not issuing pleas for tolerance or moderation, but bone-rattling attacks on what they regard as a pernicious and outdated superstition. (In the spirit of scientific evenhandedness, both would call themselves agnostic, although as Dawkins says, he's agnostic about God the same way he's agnostic about the existence of fairies.) They ask: where do people get their idea of God? From the Bible or the Qur'an. "Tell a devout Christian ... that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible," Harris writes, "and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever." He asks: How can anyone believe in a benevolent and omnipotent God who permits a tsunami to swallow 180,000 innocent people in a few hours? How does it advance our understanding of the universe to suppose that it was created by a supernatural being who communicates only through the one-way process of revelation?

These are not brand-new arguments, of course, and believers have well-practiced replies to them, although in some cases, such as the persistence of evil and suffering (the "theodicy" problem), the responses are still mostly works in progress. Neither author claims much success in arguing anyone out of a belief in God, but they consider it sufficient reward when they hear from people who were encouraged by their books to give voice to their private doubts. All the same, this is highly inflammatory material. Dawkins acknowledges that many readers will expect, or hope, to see him burning in hell (citing Aquinas as authority for the belief that souls in heaven will get a view of hell for their enjoyment). Harris says he has turned down requests for the rights to translate "The End of Faith" into Arabic or Urdu. "I think it would be a death sentence for any translator," he says. Harris himself—who traveled the world for a dozen years studying Eastern religions and mysticism before returning to finish his undergraduate degree at Stanford—asks that the name of his current university not be publicized.

These authors have no geopolitical strategy to advance; they're interested in the metaphysics of belief, not the politics of the First Amendment. It's the idea of putting trust in God they object to, not the motto on the nickel. This sets them apart from America's best-known atheist activist, the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a controversial eccentric who won a landmark lawsuit against mandatory classroom prayers in 1963 and went on to found the group now called American Atheists. When a chaplain came to her hospital room once and asked what he could do for her, she notoriously replied, "Drop dead." Dawkins, an urbane Oxfordian, would regard that as appalling manners. "I have no problem with people wishing me a Happy Christmas," he says, expressing puzzlement over the passions provoked in America by the question of how store clerks greet customers.

But if the arguments of Dawkins and Harris are familiar, they also bring to bear new scientific evidence on the issue. Evolution isn't necessarily incompatible with faith, even with evangelical Christianity. Several new books—"Evolution and Christian Faith" by the Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden and "The Language of God" by geneticist Francis Collins—uphold both. But to skeptics like Dawkins—and to Biblical literalists on the other side—Darwin appears to rob God of credit for his crowning achievement, which is us. In particular, evolutionary psychologists believe they are closing in on one of the remaining mysteries of life, the universal "moral law" that underlies our intuitive notions of good and evil. Why do we recognize that acts such as murder are wrong? To Collins, it's evidence of God's handiwork—the very perception that led him to become a Christian.

But Dawkins attempts to show how the highest of human impulses, such as empathy, charity and pity, could have evolved by the same mechanism of natural selection that created the thumb. Biologists understand that the driving force in evolution is the survival and propagation of our genes. They may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness, Dawkins writes, even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests—say, by risking our life to save someone else. Evolutionary psychology can explain how selfless behavior might have evolved. The recipient may be a blood relation who carries some of our own genes. Or our acts may earn us future gratitude, or a reputation for bravery that makes us more desirable as mates. Of course, the essence of the moral law is that it applies even to strangers. Missionaries who devote themselves to saving the lives of Third World peasants have no reasonable expectation of being repaid in this world. But, Dawkins goes on, the impulse for generosity must have evolved while humans lived in small bands in which almost everyone was related, so that goodness became the default human aspiration. This is a rebuke not merely to believers who insist that God must be the source of all goodness—but equally to the 19th-century atheism of Nietzsche, who assumed that the death of God meant the end of conventional morality.

But Dawkins, brilliant as he is, overlooks something any storefront Baptist preacher might have told him. "If there is no God, why be good?" he asks rhetorically, and responds: "Do you really mean the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward? That's not morality, that's just sucking up." That's clever. But millions of Christians and Muslims believe that it was precisely God who turned them away from a life of immorality. Dawkins, of course, thinks they are deluding themselves. He is correct that the social utility of religion doesn't prove anything about the existence of God. But for all his erudition, he seems not to have spent much time among ordinary Christians, who could have told him what God has meant to them.

It is not just extremists who earn the wrath of Dawkins and Harris. Their books are attacks on religious "moderates" as well—indeed, the very idea of moderation. The West is not at war with "terrorism," Harris asserts in "The End of Faith"; it is at war with Islam, a religion whose holy book, "on almost every page ... prepares the ground for religious conflict." Christian fundamentalists, he says, have a better handle on the problem than moderates: "They know what it's like to really believe that their holy book is the word of God, and there's a paradise you can get to if you die in the right circumstances. They're not left wondering what is the 'real' cause of terrorism." As for the Bible, Harris, like the fundamentalists, prefers a literal reading. He quotes at length the passages in the Old and New Testaments dealing with how to treat slaves. Why, he asks, would anyone take moral instruction from a book that calls for stoning your children to death for disrespect, or for heresy, or for violating the Sabbath? Obviously our culture no longer believes in that, he adds, so why not agree that science has made it equally unnecessary to invoke God to explain the Sun, or the weather, or your own existence?

Even agnostic moderates get raked over—like the late Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist who attempted to broker a truce between science and religion in his controversial 1999 book "Rocks of Ages." Gould proposed that science and religion retreat to separate realms, the former concerned with empirical questions about the way the universe works, while the latter pursues ultimate meaning and ethical precepts. But, Dawkins asks, unless the Bible is right in its historical and metaphysical claims, why should we grant it authority in the moral realm? And can science really abjure any interest in the claims of religion? Did Jesus come back from the dead, or didn't he? If so, how did God make it happen? Collins says he is satisfied with the answer that the Resurrection is a miracle, permanently beyond our understanding. That Collins can hold that belief, while simultaneously working at the very frontiers of science as the head of the Human Genome Project, is what amazes Harris.

Believers can take comfort in the fact that atheism barely amounts to a "movement." American Atheists, which fights in the courts and legislatures for the rights of nonbelievers, has about 2,500 members and a budget of less than $1 million. On the science Web site Edge.org, the astronomer Carolyn Porco offers the subversive suggestion that science itself should attempt to supplant God in Western culture, by providing the benefits and comforts people find in religion: community, ceremony and a sense of awe. "Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way," she writes. Porco, who is deeply involved in the Cassini mission to Saturn, finds spiritual fulfillment in exploring the cosmos. But will that work for the rest of the world—for "the people who want to know that they're going to live forever and meet Mom and Dad in heaven? We can't offer that." If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt

long but good - god sux

2006-08-30T16:49:09Z

Belief in God has been a powerful incentive to better living. Why do you deny God? Why do you not try to revive man’s faith in the idea of God?
-----------------
Let us look at the problem widely and intelligently. I am not denying God-it would be foolish to do so. Only the man who does not know reality indulges in meaningless words. The man who says he knows, does not know; the man who is experiencing reality from moment to moment has no means of communicating that reality.

Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the nonbeliever will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real. I know you believe and I know it has very little meaning in your life. There are many people who believe; millions believe in God and take consolation. First of all, why do you believe? You believe because it gives you satisfaction, consolation, hope, and you say it gives significance to life. Actually your belief has very little significance, because you believe and exploit, you believe and kill, you believe in a universal God and murder each other. The rich man also believe in God; he exploits ruthlessly, accumulates money, and then builds a temple or becomes a philanthropist.

The men who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima said that God was with them those who flew from England to destroy Germany said that God was their co-pilot. The dictators, the prime ministers, the generals, the presidents, all talk of God, they have immense faith in God. Are they doing service, making a better life for man? The people who say they believe in God have destroyed half the world and the world is in complete misery. Through religious intolerance there are divisions of people as believers and non-believers, leading to religions wars. It indicates how extraordinarily politically-minded you are.

Is belief in God “a powerful incentive to better living”? Why do you want an incentive to better living? Surely, your incentive must be your own desire to live cleanly and simply, must it not? If you look to an incentive, you are not interested in making life possible for all, you are merely interested in your incentive, which is different from mine-and we will quarrel over the incentive. If we live happily together not because we believe in God but because we are human beings then we will share the entire means of production in order to produce things for all. Through lack of intelligence we accept the idea of a super-intelligence which we call “God”; but this “God”, this super-intelligence, is not going to give us a better life. What leads to a better life is intelligence; and there cannot be intelligence if there is belief, if there are class divisions, if the means of production are in the hands of a few, if there are isolated nationalities and sovereign governments. All this obviously indicates lack of intelligence and it is the lack of intelligence that is preventing a better living, not bon-belief in God.

You all believe in different ways, but your belief has no reality whatsoever. Reality is what you are, what you do, what you think, and your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life. Furthermore, belief invariably divides people: there is the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian, the communist, the socialist, the capitalist and so on. Belief, idea, divides; it never brings people together. You may bring a few people together in a group but that group is opposed to another group. Ideas and beliefs are never unifying; on the contrary, they are separative, disintegrating and destructive. Therefore your belief in God is really spreading misery in the world; though it may have brought you momentary consolation, in actuality it has brought you more misery and destruction in the form of wars, famines, class-divisions and the ruthless action of separate individuals. So your belief has no validity at all. If you really believe in God, if it were a real experience to you, then your face would have a smile; you would not be destroying human beings.

Now, what is reality, what is God? God is the nod the word, the word is not the thing. To know that which is immeasurable, which is not of time, the mind must be free of time, which means the mind must be free from all through, from all ideas about God. What do you know about God or truth? You do not really know anything about that reality. All that you know are words, the experiences of others or some moments of rather vague experience of your own. Surely that is not God, that is not reality, that is not beyond the field of time. To know that which is beyond time, the process of time must be understood, time being thought, the process of becoming, the accumulation of knowledge. That is the whole background of the mind; the mind itself is the background, both the conscious and the unconscious, the collective and the individual. So the mind must be free of the known, which means the mind must be completely silent, not made silent. The minds that achieves silence as a result, as the outcome of determined action, of practice , of discipline, is not a silent mind. The mind that is forced, controlled, shaped, put into a frame and kept quiet, is not a still mind. You may succeed for a period of time in forcing the mind to be superficially silent, but such a mind is not a still mind. Stillness comes only when you understand the whole process of though, because to understand the process is to end it and the ending of the process of thought is the beginning of silence.

Only when the mind is completely silent not only on the upper level but fundamentally, right through, on the both superficial and the deeper levels of consciousness-only then can the unknown come into being. The unknown is not something to be experienced by the mind; silence alone can be experienced, nothing but silence. If the mind experiences anything but silence, it is merely projection its own desires and such a mind is not silent; so long as the mind is not silent, so long as thought in any form, conscious or unconscious, is in movement, there can be no silence. Silence is freedom from the past, from knowledge, from both conscious and unconscious memory; when the mind is completely silent, not in use, when there is the silence which is not a product of effort, then only does the timeless, the eternal come into being. That state is not a state of remembering-there is no entity that remember, that experiences.

Therefore God or truth or what you will is a thing that comes into being from moment to moment, and it happens only in a state of freedom and spontaneity, not when the mind is disciplined according to a pattern. God is a not a thing of the mind, it does not come through self-projection, it comes only when there is virtue, which is freedom. Virtue is facing the fact of what is and the facing of the fact is a state of bliss. Only when the mind is blissful, quiet, without any movement of its own, without the projection of though, conscious or unconscious-only then does the eternal come into being.

george bush sr.

2006-08-29T17:10:59Z

"Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The statement was made on august 27th 1987 at O'hare airport in chicago..the dialogue was between robert sherman a reporter for the american Atheist news journal (fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates)

the then vice president has this to say when interviewed

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

so how is it a potstir noncy?

is not an actual quote from your future president?

after bush's election but before his taking office american Atheists wrote to him asking that he consider being sworn into office on the constitution instead of the boft and also asking him to retract his august '87 statement....... c. boyden gray (counsel to the president) reply on white house stationery on february 21st '89 stating that substantively bush stood by his original statement....

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

aaah like father like son...

http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/damned.htm

There exists massive discrimination against Atheists in the U.S.

Part of this may be based on the historical linkage between Communism and Atheism. Most Communists are Atheists. But many people do not realize that most Atheists in North America are not Communists.
Another reason for this discrimination is the common belief that a person cannot be motivated to lead a moral life unless they hope for the reward of heaven, and fear the punishment of Hell. In the past, this belief had been codified into law. Conscientious objectors opposed to participating in warfare were thrown in jail if their opposition to killing was not based on belief in God.
Still another cause of discrimination is a widespread linkage between theism -- the belief in the existence of God -- American citizenship, and Christianity.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

Yeah, it's old (1987) but like father.. like son I'm sure.

they put warnings on cds... bout time they did it to books

2006-08-25T06:33:26Z

Bah

2006-08-15T18:07:49Z

There goes my hopes of WW3

the only latin you need to know

2006-08-07T21:37:59Z

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, Ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Karma

2006-08-04T19:22:16Z

Some of you may know who I'm talking about...

Many years ago, at Sanctuary, a guy broke into my new car and got blood all over it, and stole a buncha stuff (including my $1k brand new trench, oddly my last trench was stolen from Club ANything) I've held an asskicking grudge against this guy since then (like 96 or 97) and every time I have gone to club for the past 10 years or so now, he pops into my head, and I hoped, beyond hope, that he'll try popping his head into Club?. He was banned years ago for dealing inside, but I still hoped. It was actually a life ambition to beat his ass, and he was worthy of being one of 2 people to be attacked on site by me.

It, however, will never happen.
I don't know the details, but a few months ago, apparently MYK bit the dust.

I hope it was slow and painful MYK, you were a cumstain on the unwashed thong of the world

It's true...

2006-07-27T19:19:01Z

fuuuuuuuck

2006-07-26T16:36:46Z

It's looking like 2 more weeks before I can legally take the bike out of the garage :(
Just can't afford registration/liscense/insurance atm :/

Have you ever noticed.. how when you need money the most.. you never have it. It's been 3 years (ATLEAST) that I've been working on getting a bike. Every year, when I start seriously getting into it, something comes up.

Last year, I had a Sprint Cell bill from 2002(!!!) pop up on my credit report (a measily 100 bucks, they coulda just called and asked for it) which put a big dump on financing a bike. Year before that, I had to miss the classes due to balloon payoffs on my student loans. Same shit every year.

Every year I make a good amount of cash more than the year before, and every year I have even less spare cash.

Mr. Miagi

2006-07-25T15:02:02Z

OH YEAH!
My kitty!

my helmet

2006-07-24T15:24:38Z

Is cooler than I am >.<

WOO HOO

2006-07-11T17:01:49Z

Gotta love off site training.
It' slike being paid to not be at work.
Learning some new DB app for one of our insurance companies.

fun :|

YARRR!!!!

2006-07-10T18:57:41Z

Woot in my garage (the oil is from the car, not the bike :P
Little more perspective on it's size.. almost yellow line to yellow line.

Saw pirates of the carib 2..
Wow, not as good as the first one, but holy crap they brought the whole cast back. Lots of surprises, especially the cliff hanger ending. I was like WTF? NOOOOOOoooooo....... it can't be over already :(

good times. go see it.

ham_hocks @ 2006-07-08T03:30:00

2006-07-08T08:29:53Z

yeayyyyy Neo tomorrow, and Ronin this weekend should be retardedly fun

wootboo

2006-07-07T14:26:47Z

Woot! half day at work today
Boo! have to go to Bummerfest with co-workers
Woot! Free beer and food
Boo! just got a crown at the dentist and can't eat
Woot! still free beer
Boo! Wanted to get my bike registerd today
Woot! free beer
(prettymuch this continues on with every Woot being free beer)

weaksauce

2006-07-03T21:45:46Z

Not one pic from the NIN concert turned out. THere was toomuch
smoke diffusing the lights so everything just looks like perpetual explosions.

Peter Murphy singing with NiN, however was fkin cool.

Still pissed Bauhaus didn't do Bella :/

ham_hocks @ 2006-07-01T22:19:00

2006-07-02T03:21:20Z

welp, bike has officially gone down once now >.<

quarter sized buff in the front fairing :/ and a small grind on the left engine case
luckily, I know a guy that does custom painting so he can color match, and I was planning
on replaceing the cover with an aftermarket piece anyway. Luckily, it fell on the right side
so no damage to the pipe.

Still. Good gash on my leg to show for it. had it for 1 week.. such a bummer.
That said.. It's a fuckin rocket. I've only ever ridden a harley sportster before..
and this thing makes that look like a tricicle

...

2006-07-01T20:06:18Z

No, no I've never ridden a bike before.
Yes, yes I actually wanted green.
No, I don't have a death wish.
Yes, it's a 1200cc over 130hp
No, I'm not an idiot.
Yes, I said I liked the green.
No, I'm not kidding.

OMG OMG

2006-06-30T15:02:01Z

It's been far too long, but I finally got my bike.
ZRX1200 In the only color worth getting it in <3

QUOTE(John Cleese)

2006-01-27T22:52:13Z

QUOTE(John Cleese)
In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not fancy).Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.

You will relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen".
July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables.

Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) - roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.

You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.

mmm fruity

2006-01-08T23:16:33Z

Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.

yes..

2005-03-24T03:05:59Z

I'm still alive