She’s so fine

Popularity huh?

Oh well, everyone here knows the social hierarchy is completely and utterly fucked up, if you pardon my language. It’s the truth. But I guess I’m just kinda glad that at least for our schools (selective) we don’t have the whole stereotypical jocks, bimbo cheerleader blondes, nerds/geeks, loser fags, and the whole shebang.

After reading Ri’s blog about how popularity is confidence in yourself, I don’t know. I kinda disagree with that. There are people who are very confident in themselves, but they aren’t popular in the way we deem it as being popular. Confidence in what though? Confidence in maths skills? That certainly isn’t the case. I mean, who are the populars anyway?

Let’s see.  It’s all different. I think the key to being ‘popular’ is that people envy you for one reason or another. Whether it’s confidence, clothes, money, boys, looks, or even the whole package, it’s about how you are seen by your peers. It doesn’t matter if you have all of these, if your peers don’t see you as being ‘worthy’ then you aren’t. We rely so much on other people’s view/judgement of us.

Popularity is a majority-rules decisions. If no one in our grade thought that those ‘popular’ girls were popular, would they be? No. It all comes back to how we view them. Because we classify them as populars, therefore they are.

“are all guys attracted to the pretty popular vixens at least once during their high-school life?”

hmm…tough one. But I would say yes. You know what they all say. Guys are attracted to girls who are confident about themselves, their looks, or just anything. Confidence, and yet still not being overly controlling or arrogant. The balance needs to be there. Sure not all guys go for girls like this, but once again, generalisation.

And even for us girls. Because hey, on the most basic shallowest level: would you rather date a girl/guy who was good looking and nice and popular, or a girl/guy who was good looking, nice but a complete and utter social reject? If both were identical twins in every single way except for their social standing? (same level of attractiveness, niceness, etc)

You would go for the girl/guy who was popular, of course. There’s still that ingrained instinct in us to choose someone who we think is better. Sure, we might say right now that we’d prefer the social reject, just to prove that we’re not part of the herd. But as a human, it’s our basic instinct to choose what is better for us. So yes, popular is better in the natural instinct terms than socially retarded.

That’s why they say that females are attracted to bad boys/jerks. Which actually has some truth attached to it. In the stone age times, this process was part of NATURAL SELECTION.

Stone age era, women had to make a lot of babies in order for the species to survive. It was then natural for us to choose JERKS over the GOOD GUYS because those jerks will steal and kill enough so that there would be enough food to feed the babies and make it through winter. Of course, now jerks have no real use anymore, but of course, thanks to our ancestors and our instinct for survival, that’s why we end up being attracted to those bad ass boys we see so much on television.

So after all that, popularity…

It’s just a social standing really, how our peers view each other in our hierarchy.

Oh no. She’s gone…..HOLY?!

Erm, cough. No I have not actually. But this blog post is going to be about a Saint. Meh. Saints are…saintly. There’s no other word to call them. Because anything less is offensive, and anything more is just morally degrading for me to write. So lets just leave it at that, shall we?

And guess what? This guy IS a saint. Believde it or not, Tsar Nicholas II, last Tsar of Russia before the communist overthrow in 1917, one year before the end of WWI, was regarded by the Russian Orthodox Church as a saint. Yup. Not very saint like, is he? I but you guys were all thinking of Saint John the baptist, or somebody equally boring.


And no, none of this will be copied from the net.  Personal knowledge only. I’m dead serious.


As I stated before, Tsar Nicholas II was the last Tsar (or ruler) or Russia before the communist overthrow. This was the Russian Revolution’s beginning. Vladimir Lenin, and later Josef Stalin, who both were, unfortunately, rather smart and cunning men, seized control of Russia and literally forced the country into a state of Dictatorship.  Dun dun dun. Beginning of communism in Russia. Of course, then during the civil wars, Russia pulled out of WWI due to massive amounts of troops killed (about15 million as an approx.). This caused major turmoil in the citizens of Russia, and because Russia was still a feudal system country (monarchy), the sole entire blame fell onto poor Nicholas’ shoulders. Him and his royal family of course. Once the communists took over, they killed the entire family of Romanovs, sparing not even the dog. Which is rather sad if you think about it…how does a dog carry the royal family gene??

Beats me.

Some people are just weird whe it comes to finer details…THINK PEOPLE, THINK.

Anyway, entire Romanov family killed.

Apart from Anastasia, who was rumoured to have survived. Of course, a lady called Anna Anderson claimed to be the grand duchess. Which proved false, because they found the bodies of the Tsarivich Alexander and one of the grand duchesses in Ekaterenburg (pardon my spelling) in 2007, and managed to prove that they were most likely Anastasia and her brother. Of course, this didn’t stop the tirade of people who still believe that Anastasia survived the killings and managed to escape.  But then, people will believe anything if they think about it hard enough. 

Anotehr theory was that Tatiana, the second daughter, survived, There was a lady called Larrisa Tudor, who never clamied she was the grand duchess, but her odd details of her life are very coincidental. When she died, he husband brought her flwoers every year on 10th June-Tatiana’s birthday. She died on 18th July…One date away (17th)  from the apparent shootings of the royal family about two decades back. She was described to have very similar features as the grand duchess, and apparently, many people, when shown a photo of Larissa, thought that she was indeed Tatiana.

Oh..the mystery around it all. Makes history just that tiny bit more itneresting, doesn’t it?

Immortality? Pfft…

Okay, today I shall be giving you a overview of Quatum Suicide. Never heard of it? Well, you have now.

Quantum suicide is a thought experiment which has been independently proposed in 1987 by Hans Moravec, in 1988 by Bruno Marchal and in 1998 by Max Tegmark. The experiment essentially involves looking at the Schrödinger’s cat experiment from the point of view of the cat.

In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die.

Unfortunately, the physicist will be unable to report the results because, from the viewpoint of an outside observer, the probabilities will be the same whether many worlds or Copenhagen is correct.

Basically, every time the trigger is pulled, the universe slipts into two: One where the person survives, and one where he doesn’t. Tis keeps happening, but the person will only be able know what happens in the world where he IS alive, and so therefore, the theory, is still untested. Kinda gay, right?

This also can be tested for “Quantum Immortality”, but then again, nothing proves that you died or not, because your other dead body can’t tell you that. T.T

This theory can also be tested with time travel. Did you know that traveling around a black hole in the opposite direction it’s spinning will slow down time for you? Yes, this is actually a proven theory. If you travel around a black hole, and arrive back on earth, (disregard the distance between us and the nearest black hole) you will be almost 5000 years into the future. If you travel back around the black in the same direction as it spins, then you will travel past to present day. Works for past time travelling too. Cool, ain’t it? The sheer energy and gravity created by the black hole slows down any matter which comes close to it, which technically means that YOU inside your space ship will slow down, but the nrmal time doesn’t. That’s how it works.

Fireworks anyone…?

Remember remember, the Fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot.
I know of no reason,
Why the gunpowder treason,
Should ever be forgot.

So, the time of year again. 5th of November, more commonly known as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night. So, I shall give you a bit of backgroud information on the infamous plot and treason of the one Guy Fawkes.

On November the 5th, 1605, a man by the name of Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament, in London.
(For those of you who don’t know where the houses of Parliament are, it’s where the Big Ben is.)
Guy Fawkes had earlier infiltrated the Houses of Parliament, laying down more than 36 barrels of gunpowder in the undercroft of the house.
However, this plot apparently leaked out, and in the very early mornings of 5th November, Guy Fawkes was captured by the king’s guards.
Far from denying his intentions during the arrest, Fawkes stated that it had been his purpose to destroy the King and the Parliament.
Nonetheless to say, very brave man.
He was tortured for a period of four days, where he revealed nothing but the names of the people who already have been captured as part of the plot.
He was hanged, drawn and quatered on the 31st January, along with number of others implicated in the conspiracy.

A brief summary of the event which took place that fateful night.

Celebrations on this night involve fireworks displays and the building of bonfires on which traditionally “Guys” are burnt. Children are supposed to make a Guy doll, and then burn him on the bonfire. Jolly cheerful, ain’t it?

And now back to the question: Why do we celebrate Guy Fawkes Night?

One simple reason my friends.

Commonly, people celebrate this as the day that Guy Fawkes was captured and the plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament failed.
They celebrate the fact that the Catholic church still ruled with it’s power ad the King didn’t get assasinated.
I know, highly happy occasion, isn’t it?

Me? I celebrate this for a different reason. I reckon this day should be celebrated by what it had hoped to achieve, a show of the people standing up against their parliament. It’s a show of rebellion, an idea that is passed down through the centuries.
We are told to remember the idea, but not the man because a man can fail where an idea cannot.
And four hundred years later an idea can still change the world.

Who knows? Maybe one day, someone might actually succeed in finishing what the Gunpowder Plot started.

How the Henge Building coming along?

Alrighty, what shall I talk about this time? AH, I know…


So I guess most of you have heard about the term, “Stockholm Syndrome”. I pretty sure all of you know what it is, but here’s a basic run-over for the others:

Stockholm syndrome is basically a psychological disorder often seen in an abducted hostage, when the captive shows signs of loyalty to the captor, regardless of their own danger or situation.

The syndrome was named after a famous bank robbery where the captors took four bank employees hostage for a period of six days. After the hostages where rescued, the tried to save the captor, and even refused to testify against him in court.

On August 23rd, 1973, a man named Jan ERIK Olsson on leave from prison, walked into Kreditbanken and attempted to hold up the bank.  Olsson then took 4 people as hostages. He demanded his friend Clark Olofsson to be brought there, along with 3 million Swedish Kronor ($730,000 US 1973 value), two guns, bullet-proof vests, helmets and a fast car.

Olofsson was brought in by permission of the government and established a communication link with the police negotiators. One of the hostages, Kristin Enmark, said she felt safe with Olsson and Olofsson but feared the police might escalate the situation by using violent methods. Olsson and Olofsson barricaded the inner main vault in which they kept the hostages. Negotiators agreed that they could have a car to escape, but would not allow them to take hostages with them if they tried to leave.

Olsson called up the Prime Minister Olof Palme and said he would kill the hostages, backing up his threat by grabbing one in a stranglehold; she was heard screaming as he hung up.

The next day Olof Palme received another call. This time it was Kristin Enmark who said she was very displeased with his attitude, asking him to let the robbers and the hostages leave.

The drama went on. On August 26, the police drilled a hole into the main vault from the apartment above. From this hole a widely circulated picture of the hostages with Olofsson was taken.

Olsson fired his weapon and threatened to kill the hostages if any gas attack was attempted. On August 28 the gas was used anyway, and after half an hour Olsson and Olofsson surrendered. No one was physically injured.

^ There, basic summary of what happened. Kristin is a very clear example of a Stockholm Syndrome-ised person. 

Psychologists still haven’t determined the exact reason why people tend to develop this syndrome in such situations. Scientists say that the captives eventually begin to “identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of violence.” Which means that small acts of kindness by the captor are shown in a more magnified way, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition impossible. Rescue attempts are also seen as a threat; since it’s likely the captive would be injured during such attempts.”

“It’s important to note that these symptoms occur under tremendous emotional and often physical duress. The behavior is considered a common survival strategy for victims of interpersonal abuse, and has been observed in battered spouses, abused children, prisoners of war, and concentration camp survivors.”

So basically what they are saying is, this syndrome tends to develop in the victims of certain relationships, hold-ups, and many more.


Yes well, if that is the case, then I’ll be switched.


What’s your opinion on this syndrome? Do you think it’s caused by sheer human instinct to survive? Or maybe something else? Some thing more hidden perhaps?

Tell me what you reckon.

Savvy?…Thought Not.

Okay…stupid thing wouldn’t let me update yesteray, so I trying once again. 

In most countries, we all know the worse punishment for a offender: Capital Punishment, or Death Penalty. The term capital originates from Latin capitalis, literally “regarding the head” (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime originally was to be punished by the loss of head. Nowadays, there are five main ways to kill someone according to the law system, which do not general end up with the peson’s head rolling around on the ground.:

-Lethal Injection
-Firing Squad
-Electric Chair
-Gas Chamber

Out of those five, the most currently favoured method these days is the Lethal Injection.  It is now the most common form of execution in the United States: every American execution in 2005 was conducted by lethal injection. Lethal Injection was introduced in the early 20th century, as a result of the other forms of captial punishment were considered less “humane”. 
Now, this is how the death is carried out. Firstly, the patient’s arms are strapped down, and swabbed with a medical sterilizer. Don’t ask me why the hell they do this, it’s not going to matter much if the persons gonna die anyway, so why bother with “disinfectant”?

Anyway, they stick two saline drips into each ar of the patient, attaching a heart monitor as well to tell whether the person has died or not.

The basic misture for the injection is this:


· Pancuronium: A basic chemical to relax most of the muscles in the body. If given too much, the body system suffers from a complete failure, leading to a very traumatic death.

· Potassium chloride: stops the heart, and thus causes death by cardiac arrest.

· Sodium thiopental: ultra-short action barbiturate, an anesthetic agent capable of rendering the person unconscious in a few seconds while the other two chemicals do their work. This doesn’t last very long, only 5-20 mins. So if your death takes longer than that, so sometimes the ‘patient’ is undergoing a complete lack of movement due to the drug mentioned above, and unable to cry out, or scream while the potassium chloride kills them brain dead. And they can feel every second of it. How lovely.

Now, generally, death happens to the poor person in about….seven to ten minutes.
Unless you’re one of the VERY unlucky ones, then you might hafta wait a bit longer. Lets say, two hours?


Now, this whole procedure with the Lethal Injection came on because the rest of the methods were considered “less humane”. 

Now I wonder, are we really being more humane by putting someone to death like a dog? Let’s think. How to we kill dogs? By injections. This particular form of killing is positively even more degrading than the other methods. No one wants to feel like a beast just before they are killed. At least when you’re getting hanged, or shot at, you have a certain level of dignity before you die. This one, you are forcibly restrained into your seat by drugs and straps, while you wait patiently for the chemicals to do their work in your body.

What do you think? Lethal injections, or something else? Or maybe just no death at all?

After all, it doesn’t solve anything. By killing the offenders, aren’t you degrading yourself down to a murderer as well? Have a think about it.



Dictating the Roles of Moths…

Btw, most of you will know by now, I will have completely retarded titles for my blog posts. Just because I feel like it, and they will be different.

Unles of course I go to somewhere eg: Like POTO stage show, then I’ll call it POTO stage show or whatever. Yea. Just so you know.

Okay…Yesterday was my IPT Prelim test….and I died. In a completely non-figurative way. Yep.
Very non-figurative. So screwed, I bet I’m gonna get ranked 2nd last or something….
My only hope is that Mr Boland marks REALLY easy on me. Cos I know I stuffed it badly….
*Prays to Allah for the best* 

Today was more fun I guess. We ad an Aboriginal dancer come and talk to us about his people and stuff. His name was…Phil Guyer (It’s pronouced that way, so I’m just assuming the spelling)
Man that guy was Funny. Big father, big brother, big sister XDD

Sure sure, venting space yeah…

What do you want me to vent ABOUT?

I mean, there’s so much things I can just rant off here, but then again, it wouldn’t be the least bit interesting to read. So I shall refrain myself today.

Since I have mentioned Allah, I might as well get one thing straight.

I do not believe there is a God, or Heaven. Which might be a bit weird, because I definitely believe in what most people call the “Devil“, and I know for certain that there is Hell.

You ask why, I can imagine. Well, I do not believe the fact that there is a God out there that takes it upon himself to be everywhere at once, and love everyone. Because if he did, then no one would be suffering out in the Third World countries.

And the whole crap about “God loves you UNCONDITIONALLY” ??? That’s exactly what I said it was. CRAP.
If God loved us unconditionally, then there wouldn’t be any need for us to attend mass, repent our sins, and listen to sermons on about how only when we say sorry, and then we will be forgiven.


To me, that seems like a hell of a lot of conditions. 

Whereas the Devil. He doesn’t need any conditions to accept you into Hell. It all depended on whether or not you were good on your own Accord. He doesn’t care whether you’re a saint, or if you prayed 3 times a day. 

Well then, lets say you’ve been a good person your whole life. Never smoked, killed anyone, stolen anything. And then we hit a snag: You’re Aethiest. Suddenly, you’re not that good a person in God’s book anymore. Therefore, you go to Hell. That’s right, apparently, the first circle of Hell is for the NON BELIEVERS.

Don’t you find that highly ironic?

Whereas Mr Lucifer down there, he doesn’t give a DAMN abot whether you believe in him or not, he accepts you anyway.


There. End of rant. Hope it wasn’t that big a waste of your time. Continue reading

  • Calendar

    • October 2016
      M T W T F S S
      « Dec    
  • Search