The Syndicate

Missing Person wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You know you're a Mafia addict when a headline like this has you scratching your head for a while.

Time to bus Cruz, clearly.

It's a rare thing, but sometimes, as a teacher, one of your former students goes on to do things you didn't think he could do.

Wow. it doesn't get much more heartwarming than that.

Epignosis although I don't know personally, I know how painful it is to lose a friend. I'm so sorry about Gavin. Hope you will be alright.

TinyBubbles wrote:Epignosis although I don't know personally, I know how painful it is to lose a friend. I'm so sorry about Gavin. Hope you will be alright.

Those are kind words, and I appreciate them.

Epignosis wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Epignosis although I don't know personally, I know how painful it is to lose a friend. I'm so sorry about Gavin. Hope you will be alright.

Those are kind words, and I appreciate them.

you're very welcome <3

Yesterday I played an afternoon show with a band I worked with for years off and on. We had a ball playing together. My dad plays with us, and it's good knowing that I play music with him just as he played music with his old man.

Following us (while we feasted on spicy barbecue) was our bassist's brother's band, who played some really right beach music.

After there show, I pitched shoes with my brothers (Eloh was my partner for a while, but she was lousy. I had to walk half the horseshoe pit to collect our shoes). An old man relieved her and we won (yeah, no thanks to me, because I suck too!)

The main show that night was PineTop Lightning, a Southern Rock band from South Carolina. They did some originals, and had some great original takes on some classic rock favorites. Their version of "Long Haired Country Boy" by The Charlie Daniels Band was bitchin', and they actually played "The Needle and the Spoon," a Lynyrd Skynyrd favorite of mine I've never heard a live band cover.

During their break, I got to talk to their bassist. I told him how disappointed I was that their introduction to "Little Wing" didn't turn into "Roundabout." He laughed and immediately had me pegged for a prog rocker. So we talked prog. He was sad to hear the news that Chris Squire has leukemia. But he asked me what was new in the world of prog rock, and I recommended Echolyn to him. He said he would look them- and ProgArchives- up.

During that same break, I got to talk to the other guys in the band. The drummer is my age, but the band leader started touring the year before my father graduated high school. Anyway, we talked some more, and the band leader nonchalantly asked if I wanted to pick one with them.

I said sure- why not?

After he listed the rest of their set list, I picked one out I wanted to do and got my equipment ready. He said he'd call me out from the stage when it was time to go. So I had couple of beers and watched as they rocked through some favorites.

When it was my turn to play, I didn't know I'd be on Facebook two minutes after I'd finished. My brother's fiancee recorded it on her phone (there is a snag during the first verse- I don't know what happened).

Anyway, here's my part in a very fun Southern Rock show.

Here are a couple of images of my old man and me from earlier that day:

And here's a picture of Epignosis on his way home from work.

May the metronome die a fiery death.

That looks really cool, Rob! I wasn't paying attention and for a split second thought your dad was wearing a Mario shirt -_-

STAN

Ricochet wrote:STAN

I know, right? What a match. I'm pleased. Well done, Wawrinka!

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:STAN

I know, right? What a match. I'm pleased. Well done, Wawrinka!

This was the definition of a tournament and especially match of his life for him. If a quarter of his Australian Open success last year was attributed to Nadal succumbing to injuries (although that's still quack, because he had to beat Djokovic to get in that final in the first place, plus he did almost nothing wrong in that final either), this time you can't take absolutely anything from this victory, it had everything. Nerves under control, rise to the occasion, fighting spirit, outrageous tennis.

Ricochet wrote:STAN

DARSH!

I have a job interview on Friday - would be a really great job, so fingers crossed.

get 'em Golden. provide a link to Death and Taxes in your resume.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:get 'em Golden. provide a link to Death and Taxes in your resume.

Although I am a lawyer, I'm not convinced that how well I can lie is a good selling point.

Biblical mafia, though...

WELL I GOT ME A FINE WIFE
I GOT ME A FIDDLE
WHEN THE SUN'S COMING UP
I GOT CAKES ON THE GRIDDLE

Epi bought this so that he could play it every time he gets NKed on night 1.

Wouldn't a solid gold violin weigh hundreds of pounds and sound crummy?

SHIT THAT'S COOL I WANT IT

nutella wrote:SHIT THAT'S COOL I WANT IT

WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE IT



(Actually you can because they sell more of them)

fine fiddle, fella

Is that a picture of a llama's ass?

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY MARRIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

A Person wrote:GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY MARRIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

I am also very happy for all the people who wish to be married but could not before.

Can I marry myself anywhere in America? I'm clearly my best and only possible match.

Ricochet wrote:Can I marry myself anywhere in America? I'm clearly my best and only possible match.

I don't know about marriage, but I know that there are plenty of Americans who are in love with themselves.

My brother, Jesse, who is gay posted on Facebook that he was annoyed at the Gay Marriage ruling. He said that now he's lost his excuse when the Aunts ask him, "So when are you going to get married??" LOL

Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.

Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.

I had an argument with my Great Uncle (who is a VERY OLD MAN) a while back about this. He got all in my face about it, how pastors & priests would be forced to perform weddings for people against their conscience.

Um, Uncle, I said. Catholic priests have been not marrying people for YEARS because it went against their beliefs. Can't get a Catholic wedding if divorced, can't get a Catholic wedding if marrying a non-Catholic. And iirc, it is the same for Orthodox. No one tried to FORCE Father Whazzizname to do the wedding for my husband and I (he was my husbands priest) when he refused becasue I was not a Catholic. Why do people think it will be otherwise now?

So I am not getting the "it is an attack on my beliefs" argument, if religious officiants have always dictated who they would and would not marry for religious reasons. So, a gay person could not sue the Westboro Baptists for refusing to perform a Gay Wedding, because it clearly violates their doctrine. So I am not sure what Huckabee and his ilk are screaming about, acting as if Gay Marriage is a second spear stuck in Jesus' side.

It's hard for me to post on this subject without a giant diatribe about how ill Christianity is (certainly the part of Christianity which makes all the noise and gets all the press), so I will leave it at this...

Congratulations USA, glad you caught up.

I also want to point out that this is another blow to government telling people what they can't do.

I love it when it that happens.

I had an omelette for breakfast today.

Ricochet wrote:I had an omelette for breakfast today.

Au fromage?

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I had an omelette for breakfast today.

Au fromage?

But of course.

And with juicy bacon on the side.

Yeah I'm not gonna lose those pounds anytime soon.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I had an omelette for breakfast today.

Au fromage?

But of course.

And with juicy bacon on the side.

Yeah I'm not gonna lose those pounds anytime soon.

Wouldn't you rather lose kilograms instead?

Either would be quite fine.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.

I had an argument with my Great Uncle (who is a VERY OLD MAN) a while back about this. He got all in my face about it, how pastors & priests would be forced to perform weddings for people against their conscience.

Um, Uncle, I said. Catholic priests have been not marrying people for YEARS because it went against their beliefs. Can't get a Catholic wedding if divorced, can't get a Catholic wedding if marrying a non-Catholic. And iirc, it is the same for Orthodox. No one tried to FORCE Father Whazzizname to do the wedding for my husband and I (he was my husbands priest) when he refused becasue I was not a Catholic. Why do people think it will be otherwise now?

So I am not getting the "it is an attack on my beliefs" argument, if religious officiants have always dictated who they would and would not marry for religious reasons. So, a gay person could not sue the Westboro Baptists for refusing to perform a Gay Wedding, because it clearly violates their doctrine. So I am not sure what Huckabee and his ilk are screaming about, acting as if Gay Marriage is a second spear stuck in Jesus' side.

I have yet to read the SCOTUS opinions and dissents on the issue but I will in due time (yeah, I'm that big of a nerd). As a social quasi-libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the way the court ruled through the lens of the 14th Amendment. What I am curious to learn is how the majority spoke to religious freedom in their decision. Pundits were pondering whether a court ruling in favor of putting same-sex marriage validity under the umbrella of the 14h Amendment would also speak to protecting the freedom of denominations to excise their religious beliefs and decline to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. If they don't extend the same level of protections as many state courts did, I can imagine a scenario where the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions (not just Christian churches mind you) are threatened over discrimination.

The crux of the argument is similar to what the Boy Scouts of America faced years ago over openly gay Scout Masters- religious institutions retain their right to preach what they want regarding homosexuality but their stance on the issue may disqualify them from tax-exempt status. As someone who belongs to a denomination that is still torn over this issue, I'd hate to see my church lose tax exempt status and likely have to shut its doors because of an issue that isn't even preached on from the pulpit. Converting a church to a taxable entity is an expensive nightmare and involves a lot of red tape, new regulations, and all sorts of headaches and pitfalls that will probably bury most small to mid-sized churches.

Golden wrote:It's hard for me to post on this subject without a giant diatribe about how ill Christianity is (certainly the part of Christianity which makes all the noise and gets all the press), so I will leave it at this...

Congratulations USA, glad you caught up.

I'm sorry you have such negative views about a faith that I myself follow. I can agree that there are plenty of people professing a faith that looks and sounds almost nothing like what I believe in. I'd love to talk to you via PM about it if you like.

G-Man wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.

I had an argument with my Great Uncle (who is a VERY OLD MAN) a while back about this. He got all in my face about it, how pastors & priests would be forced to perform weddings for people against their conscience.

Um, Uncle, I said. Catholic priests have been not marrying people for YEARS because it went against their beliefs. Can't get a Catholic wedding if divorced, can't get a Catholic wedding if marrying a non-Catholic. And iirc, it is the same for Orthodox. No one tried to FORCE Father Whazzizname to do the wedding for my husband and I (he was my husbands priest) when he refused becasue I was not a Catholic. Why do people think it will be otherwise now?

So I am not getting the "it is an attack on my beliefs" argument, if religious officiants have always dictated who they would and would not marry for religious reasons. So, a gay person could not sue the Westboro Baptists for refusing to perform a Gay Wedding, because it clearly violates their doctrine. So I am not sure what Huckabee and his ilk are screaming about, acting as if Gay Marriage is a second spear stuck in Jesus' side.

I have yet to read the SCOTUS opinions and dissents on the issue but I will in due time (yeah, I'm that big of a nerd). As a social quasi-libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the way the court ruled through the lens of the 14th Amendment. What I am curious to learn is how the majority spoke to religious freedom in their decision. Pundits were pondering whether a court ruling in favor of putting same-sex marriage validity under the umbrella of the 14h Amendment would also speak to protecting the freedom of denominations to excise their religious beliefs and decline to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. If they don't extend the same level of protections as many state courts did, I can imagine a scenario where the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions (not just Christian churches mind you) are threatened over discrimination.

The crux of the argument is similar to what the Boy Scouts of America faced years ago over openly gay Scout Masters- religious institutions retain their right to preach what they want regarding homosexuality but their stance on the issue may disqualify them from tax-exempt status. As someone who belongs to a denomination that is still torn over this issue, I'd hate to see my church lose tax exempt status and likely have to shut its doors because of an issue that isn't even preached on from the pulpit. Converting a church to a taxable entity is an expensive nightmare and involves a lot of red tape, new regulations, and all sorts of headaches and pitfalls that will probably bury most small to mid-sized churches.

Golden wrote:It's hard for me to post on this subject without a giant diatribe about how ill Christianity is (certainly the part of Christianity which makes all the noise and gets all the press), so I will leave it at this...

Congratulations USA, glad you caught up.

I'm sorry you have such negative views about a faith that I myself follow. I can agree that there are plenty of people professing a faith that looks and sounds almost nothing like what I believe in. I'd love to talk to you via PM about it if you like.

I wasn't going to omment on this decision, but I will now.

Justice Kennedy did mention in his majority opinion that the right to religious freedom must be preserved. Personally, though, I think it's only a matter of time before the scenario you describe comes to pass.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the the right to be left alone, and I don't think it's any of the government's business who you want to marry. For that matter, I don't think it's the role of government to tell people whether they are or are not married any more than it is to tell them whether they are or are not in love.

That being said, although I support gay marriage, I disagree with the Court's ruling, and think it interprets the 14th amendment too broadly. I fear the Court's ability to create new, "positive" rights and justify them under equal protection. I also think history has shown that social transitions go more smoothly when you win the war of ideas democratically and let states change their laws one by one than when you have five people dictate to the rest of the country "this is how it's going to be." That kind of approach creates a lot of bitterness and resentment that I think could have been avoided.

In summary, get the state out of marriage altogether and treat it like a contract between any consenting adults, whether they of different sexes, the same sex, more than two people, or brother and sister. It's nobody else's business.

@G-Man - the threat to churches of becoming taxable entities is on the horizon in New Zealand as well. It's a direct result of their being people who are anti-religion who do not see why religious entities should be allowed to enjoy tax-free status.

But I think it would be very bad for policy reasons, because the reality is that the religious (and I'm not saying only Christians here) are often responsible for a larger percentage of social work, funded through income that the church makes, than other sectors of society. The reality of taxing churches is probably to leave the marginilised and poor worse off.

I have a date on Thursday. Or, coffee or something.

Does asking and going to coffee with a girl count as a date?

Ricochet wrote:I have a date on Thursday. Or, coffee or something.

Does asking and going to coffee with a girl count as a date?

Only if you pay for her coffee and ask to do it again sometime.

I think it counts.

G-Man wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I have a date on Thursday. Or, coffee or something.

Does asking and going to coffee with a girl count as a date?

Only if you pay for her coffee and ask to do it again sometime.

I'll definitely do the first, but I'll have to check the vibe to see if the latter is worth asking.

http://fox43.com/2015/06/29/police-drug ... -epidemic/

Our local police force busted a sizable heroin ring operating out of a home half a mile from my house.

Stories like these make me worry about the world my daughters are going to grow up in.

Happy Canada Day

Is it just me or did Canada pick a day way too close to 4th July to make it look like anything other than jealousy?

Ah, those Canadians, with good and proper inferiority complexes. We kiwis understand.