Not safe for work.
Funny Hunter encounters
How to take down zombies in Doom 3.
Resident Evil Jill Valentine
One way people entertain themselves when not playing L4D.
Heavy weapons guy and the medic.
The scout’s reaction to Left 4 Bed.
Reply to Left for Bed.
The creative genius of people with idle hands. Louis helps Zoey out.
Garry’s Mod shenanigans.
Still alive.
TFT has up a new DVD series on throwing.
Please check out the audio interview first, through the flash link and mp3 download, and then watch the demonstration video.
I have no real comments to make, other than the Chris Buhr makes a very clear case. I could make something like his, but why listen to me when you have him. I can certainly answer questions, if I know the answers, but Chris Buhr has been figuring out the permutations of this “art”, if you want to call it that, for awhile now.
I believe this was quite awhile ago, the 2004-6 elections I believe, but it is very apt nonetheless.
Atlas Shrugs on Anne Coulter’s calling John Edwards a “faggot”.
At the very end, last 30 seconds or so, I can only say “damn fing straight”.
In light of these days of multiculturalism and abnormally elevated self-esteem, let’s hear John Galt’s monologue once more. [John Galt, primary character in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand]
Don’t forget Howard Roark [Architect in the Fountainhead]
Number 5 in the OP.
Now, here is a flickr picture in honor of couples: in our day and age of hookups.
Here is another picture of a pretty coastline. Well, more like jaggy rocks, but still.
This is a rather amusing page about the various incidents that can happen on entertainment shows.
A process that seeks to make a work of fiction “more adult”. All too often, this really means it’ll be less mature about its production.
Beware any press release that promises a new character or show which will be Darker And Edgier than the competition. In theory, it means that a show will shift towards cynicism on the Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Cynicism. But in practice, it far overshoots the mark, ending up spiced up with gratuitous gore, cursing, and sex, none of which makes the story any better and which wouldn’t impress anybody but Beavis And Butthead. The show will also demonstrate that it’s a harder universe now by having lots of unpleasant things happen to the characters or giving the characters a particular issue they can spend all their time angsting about; as with the sex and violence, this will usually be done in a ham-handed and immature manner and will come off as being annoying, if not actually laughable.
….
“They’re eating her. And then they’re going to eat me. OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.”
— Arnold, Troll 2“RUN!!! GO!!! GET TO THE CHOPAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!”
— Arnold Schwarzenegger, PredatorA Narm is a moment that is supposed to be serious, but due to either over-sappiness, poor execution, excessive Melodrama, or the sheer absurdity of the situation, the drama is lost. The moment is often found funny by fans. It can be extremely subjective.
Most of Go Rin No Sho uses hard to understand words and juxtapositions. Without a background in certain military fields or basic human history, you will have a hard time to comprehending what is being communicated here. Even with such a background, you may still fail to comprehend due to some flaw in your perspective. For example, the OODA cycle invented by USAF Colonel John Boyd has proved that if you can get inside the enemy’s decision making process (his OODA cycle) you can get a jump on him. In combat, this is a decisive advantage that allows you to annihilate the enemy, even if he should have superior numbers or resources at his command. Now, with that idea in your mind, read the section of Go Rin No Sho above here again. Perhaps you will see a connection with your more perfect perspective: more than you had seen before.
As applied to Target Focus Training, the three precepts listed here becomes very simple when applied to practical examples. Ken No Sen is when some guy starts bothering you in a bar and while you two are facing off each other trying to intimidate each other, you pull out a gun and blow his brains away unto the bar top. That is Ken No Sen: to attack first and with overwhelming might while the other guy is still getting ready. It would also apply to a First Strike attack with nuclear missiles.
Tai No Sen would be a woman who pretends to be cowed and frightened, and when the attacker lets down his guard, the woman attacks with decisive strikes (decisive in that the target dies).
Tai Tai No Sen would apply to a knife wielding assailant who tries to cut you, and instead of blocking his strike or backing away out of his range, you close the gap and interrupt his attack with a strike towards the throat or body. The knife is only dangerous at the tip, while your body and arms are dangerous at any range where you can touch another with it. Tai No Shen would also be seen in Bruce Lee’s “Intercepting Fist” concept where instead of passively waiting and blocking the opponent’s strike, you attack him as he is attacking you, but you connect first, thus stopping his attack.
This gave me a huge belly laugh.
This was a very sublime quote from David Gemmell’s novel “The Legend”.
‘Will we die tomorrow?’ asked another.
‘How can I tell?’ answered Antaheim. ‘But all men must die eventually. The gift of life is not permanent.’
‘You say “gift”,’ said Rabil. ‘This implies a giver?’
‘Indeed it does.’
‘Which then of the gods do you follow?’‘We follow the Source of all things. How do you feel after todays’ battle?’
‘In what way?’ asked Rabil, pulling his cloak closer about him.
‘What emotions did you feel as the Nadir fell back?’
‘It’s hard to describe. Strong.’ He shrugged. ‘Filled with power. Glad to be alive.’ The other men nodded at this.
‘Exultant?’ offered Antaheim.
‘I suppose so. Why do you ask?’
Antaheim smiled. ‘This is Eldibar, Wall One. Do you know the meaning of the word “Eldibar”?’
‘Is it not just a word?’
‘No, it is far more. Egel, who built this fortress, had names carved on every wall.
“Eldibar” means “Exultation”, it is there that the enemy is first met. It is there he is seen to be a Man. Power flows in the veins of the defenders. The enemy falls back against the weight of our swords and the strength of our arms. We feel, as heroes should, the thrill of battle and the call of our heritage. We are exultant! Egel knew the hearts of men. I wonder did he know the future?’
‘What do the other names mean?’
Antaheim shrugged. ‘That is for another day. It is not good luck to talk of Musif while we shelter under the protection of Eldibar.’ Antaheim leaned back into the wall and closed his eyes, listening to the rain and the howling wind.
Musif. The Wall of Despair! Where strength has not been great enough to hold Eldibar, how can Musif be held? If we could not hold Eldibar, we cannot hold Musif. Fear will gnaw at our vitals. Many of our friends will have died at Eldibar and once more we will see, in our minds, the laughing faces. We wll not want to join them. Musif is the test.
And we will not hold. We will fall back to Kania, the Wall of Renewed Hope. We did not die on Musif and Kania is a narrower fighting place. And anyway, are there not three more walls? The Nadir can no longer use their ballistae here, so that is something, is it not? In any case, did we not always know we would lose a few walls?
Sumitos, the Wall of Desperation, will follow. We are tired, mortally weary. We fight now by instinct, mechanically and well. Only the very best will be left to stem the savage tide.
Valteri, Wall Five, is the Wall of Serenity. Now we have come to terms with mortality. We accept the inevitability of our deaths, and find in ourselves depths of courage we would not have believed possible. The humour will begin again and each will be a brother to each other man. We will have stood together against the common enemy, shield to shield, and we will have made him suffer. Time will pass on this wall more slowly. We will savour our senses, as if we have discovered them anew. The stars will become jewels of beauty we never saw before, and friendship will have a sweetness never previously tasted.
And finally Geddon, the Wall of Death . . .
On a more funny note, we have this youtube vid courtesy of Cassandra by way of Sly.
Speaking of homoerotic subjects, check this one out about Keith Olbermann: Courtesy of Zhombre.
As a parent, I’ll always be a little ambivalent about my pro-gun choice. On a day-to-day basis I see myself as a nurturer. It’s my job to hug and kiss my girls — to make them feel loved and secure. Holding a gun hardly feels maternal. Yet it’s that very maternal instinct that moves me to protect my children at all costs. In a sense, I’m no different than a wild mother bear who will tear anyone or anything apart if she perceives a threat to her cubs. But being human, we are held to a different standard — a moral standard. But that’s the whole rub: if my children were threatened, all moral reasoning goes out the window.
Any kind of risk to my children’s life is scary to me. In the end, though, I realize the kind of risk gun-ownership poses is a risk I can confidently control and minimize. Crime is not.
All I wanted to say on this topic was covered in the two comments I posted at the link.
Katie:
I don’t know that I could handle a gun competently in the adrenalin rush that would come with a threatening situation – no matter what kind of training I had had. In fact, I would probably be one of those people who end up having their own gun turned on them.
All of these problems, Katie, have answers. Whether you acquire those answers or not depends upon primarily two factors. Your own desire and will combined with knowledge of where to get the info/training.
You are right in the sense that high adrenaline situations produce sub-optimal conditions for accurate shooting of a firearm. For example, in high stress situations you tend to grip the firearm more tightly and if it is a handgun, then your (incorrect) grip may be enough to make you miss the target by a couple of inches. This is solved by practicing until drawing, aiming, and shooting a firearm (with the lock, load, safety, and magazine reload actions assumed) becomes part of your muscle memory. Just as you drive without consciously thinking of all the various different things you have to do, just as you hit the brakes when you get surprised while driving, the same must be conducted with firearms, Katie.
However, that by itself may not reassure you. What if your problem is also mental in the sense that you doubt that you will be able to make the right decision in a life and death environment? What if you don’t want to draw the gun because you see the gun as a weapon that kills people and you don’t want to kill people (as is natural and mostly healthy for law abiding citizens)? Then, your problems are different. Firearms training won’t solve those hangups. What will solve them is either using a different “tool” (a firearm is just a tool. I can kill a person just as easily and with more certainty with my bare hands), like mace, or training yourself to, mentally and psychologically, recognize asocial situations.
If, even in a situation with a criminal threatening your children, you still have doubts about how you will react, then I suggest Target Focus Training. It provides you the training, both physical and mental, in how to break a person’s body apart using your bare hands. And if you don’t want to kill them, then all you have to do is to pick a different target on the human body to hit. Whereas martial arts takes decades to get up to black belt status and they still don’t train you for the streets and against serial killers, TFT focuses exclusively on maiming, disabling, or killing criminals trying to kill you or your loved ones.
One example you might be interested in concerns firearm disarms. It is correct that if a criminal, oftentimes a man, gets into grappling range with a woman, that the woman will often lose the gun in a grapple fight. That is just obvious since most women are less powerful in the upper body than your average man. This is especially true if it is a young man and you are a much older woman. TFT trains in both open handed disarms as well as provides you with the knowledge you need to prevent yourself from being disarmed, even if the assailant has both their hands on your arms and the firearm is pointed past his torso and you need to struggle to get it lined up with his body in order to shoot him. This uses nothing concerning your upper body strength (which is why women can use it as effectively as men can).
I’m thinking more about elementary aged kids, who are savvy enough to find guns in their hiding places but still so sure of their own immortality that they will do stupid things with them when they do find them. They are past the wanting to drink any poisonous substance age, and guns hold a fascination for them that no amount of safety training can obliterate.
Depends on what you mean by safety training. If you take a kid out, elementary aged, and shoot a watermelon with a large caliber, I believe the kid will be able to “imagine” the damage a gun can do.
Guns hold fascination because adults tend to want to forbid their use to children. Instead of doing that, children need to be exposed more to firearms as a prerequisite to Pavlovian training in why it is not proper to play with guns.
A study was done with two groups of young kids. One group was told all about guns, how dangerous they were, to tell an adult if they ever found one, not to touch them, etc. The second groups was told nothing. Later, (unlodaded) guns were placed where the kids would find them. The properly trained kids PLAYED WITH THE GUN, just like the untrained group.
As I said, depends on what you mean by “safety training”. That’s not safety training. That’s just academic theories people try out because they have never used firearms or been around a culture that needed firearms for hunting, self-defense, warfare, or etc.
After a kid watches a watermelon explode from the discharge of a firearm, I don’t really believe more than .5% of kids would then think to themselves “that’d be cool if it happened to my head or somebody else’s head”.
And if you do have one of those kids, then you have bigger problems than just firearms.
Other Pavlovian methods include the punishment drill where you inflict a negative physical stimuli upon the kid when the kid starts doing behavior that is dangerous. Wood stove or firearms, doesn’t matter.
This conditioning method also applies to firearms safety, since you’d be surprised how many adults will not check the breech before they fiddle around with a firearm. They won’t check the breech until you impress upon them the importance of it.
People, like basketball stars, who put 9mm glocks with no safeties inside their pants and then shoot themselves in the leg while they are bouncing up and down in a night club are… not prototypical of the common sense population.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 7, 2008 12:40 AM
Or whether the house has any lead paint? Or whether there is a body of water on the family’s property in which a child might drown? Why single out guns?
Probably because guns are seen as ‘killers’ while forced flu vaccination are seen as “Good Things” ™
Flu vaccinations cause permanent damage
It all depends on what the new EngSoc terminology is these days.
Guns, for better or worse, are seen by most people as tools specifically designed to make killing effortless, easy, and without requiring the intent to kill.
The “intent to kill” can be defined as someone with a bat repeatedly smashing it up against an infant’s skull about 10, 50, 100 times. You know that guy has “intent to kill”.
Muscle powered weaponry, namely knives, bats, and various other implements, require intent to kill somebody because if you just tap somebody with it, it is not going to kill them. You would have to specifically land on a knife, at the right angle, with your body weight on it, before it could ‘accidentally’ kill someone (meaning you). And most people survive single knife stab wounds, anyway. (same with single bullet wounds)
However, a firearm simply refines the principles which make violence work. Even though most people see fist fights and whatevers as being less lethal, you also have to realize that there have been plenty of people who have gotten into bar fights, with no intention of killing people, but still having dead bodies to show to the police.
This is because those people unintentionally applied the principles of violence, the same principles which make a bullet penetrate a human body and cause damage (sometimes fatal).
Both firearms and less lethal implements (like bare hands) all operate on the same principles and all are oftentimes more lethal than expected but most often (in the hands of the untrained or those without the intent) are far less lethal than popularly conceived.
An important element is intent. If, say, a firearm provides 90% of the intent and it only requires you to pull the trigger, then a knife would provide 50% intent and barehands would provide 20% intent all by themselves. But, a person without that 10% required intent to pull the trigger to kill, and that person faces up against a guy, 250 pounds of bone and muscle, and that guy has 150% intent, then it doesn’t really matter that you have a firearm and he only has a melee weapon. A person with the intent to kill is not going to “hang back” trying to flee or defend himself. A person with intent is going to close the distance to you, because they know you are harmelss and don’t have the intent to kill them, and then they are going to apply the instrument in their hands to your head, repeatedly, until you are no longer functional.
This is why prosecutors love trying to disprove self-defense defenses by saying you shot him more than 3 or 5 times. That is intentional, to shoot a person more than 1 or 2 times, repeatedly, in the back or front.
But, in reality, they don’t seem to use that with bats or knives. Do you get a harsher sentence if the guy you killed was killed with one stab to the heart or 50 stabs in the body? *shrugs* Hard to say. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is intent, not how many times you did something. The intent to kill is what makes multiple repetitions lethal, because a person with the intent to kill is normally going to target your head, which they think is going to kill you. Since people are untrained, the head is a popular target for killers or just multiple stab wounds on the body. After a person becomes trained, they start seeing that there are numerous ways to kill somebody, even though targets around the head and spine are still the more lethal ones.
A bullet to the head/neck is almost a guaranteed kill. Firearms work better with intent and accuracy in the choosing of targets, just like any other tool. It is no different.
But I know myself too well to believe that a gun would help, rather than hurt
Why all this matters is precisely because unless you are trained in the principles of violence, of how violence works, and how to apply that with any tool in your arsenal (bare hands, bat, knife, firearm, stone rock, etc), you don’t really “know” what you think you know.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 7, 2008 1:01 AM
Forget about “moral reasoning” when threatened with a “home invasion.” I speak
from personal experience–one of those episodes which people usually only read about
in newspapers. My home was invaded in the
middle of the night and I suffered 17 stab
wounds. all tendons cut in one arm, a
collapsed lung, and laid bleeding in my bed-
room for three hours while my house was
thoroughly ransacked and I was repeatedly
raped by a single intruder. (I did not have a weapon.) There are other details but to end the story, I asked for an ice cube. When the intruder went to the kitchen, he found my scotch which he started drinking, giving me time to get up and out the front door. The moral of the story: keep your scotch in the freezer of your refrigerator and keep a gun on the bedside
table. Now if I hear a noise, I put the gun
in my hand under the covers. By the way, the
first place the intruder looked for “my weapon” was around the bed between the mattress and box springs. I grew up around guns and could fairly
well handle rifles and simple pistols and I was
fairly good at target practice. But I have no qualms about ‘morality’ because I know how strong the will to survive can be. By the way,
I am female.Posted by: Safer Now at December 7, 2008 11:25 AM
I wouldn’t say that I was raised around chivalric values, but it certainly had an impact on me, regardless of where I got it from. I ended up with a strong protection instinct towards those unable to defend themselves, although namely women. It was only as I got older that I started learning that the best way to protect women is to teach them how to protect themselves. This wasn’t an option when I was under the impression that women had a natural disadvantage in fights against men. It is, however, an option now that I’ve learned the basic underlying principles of violence and how it isn’t based upon strength or size (two things women will always lack compared to men). And it is not firearms that equalize the difference, either, or rather it is not firearms alone that equalizes the difference between men and women in terms of their ability to fight and kill. Firearms is just the fastest way to close the gap, although it is true that a gun is no substitute for lack of fighting ability (hand to hand or otherwise).
The Japanese definitely have their own way of doing things, and not just with anime.
|
….
That block was for the martial arts enthusiasts here ; )
And from Go Rin No Sho: The Book of Five Rings:
According to this Ichi school, you can win with a long weapon, and yet you can also win with a short weapon. In short, the Way of the Ichi school is the spirit of winning, whatever the weapon and whatever its size.
What did you think of when you read this? Did you think of H2H vs firearms? Do you know that the Japanese long sword, the katana, is a feet or more longer than the companion sword, the wakizashi? It is only a difference of range, not a difference of fundamental potential.
This is a truth: when you sacrifice your life, you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn.
If you thought of Flight 93 when you read that line, then congratulations, you have an uncommon insight.
If you thought of Total War, then congratulations, you have the markings of a strategist.
However, if you only believe “weaponry” consists of knives, clubs, and firearms, you have already fallen into a pit. The first and foremost weapons humans were given is encased in our skull: the human brain. All other things are external attachments and tools, including your hands and feet.
Small people must be completely familiar with the spirit of large people, and large people must be familiar with the spirit of small people. Whatever your size, do not be misled by the reactions of your own body. With your spirit open and unconstricted, look at things from a high point of view. You must cultivate your wisdom and spirit. Polish your wisdom: learn public justice, distinguish between good and evil, study the Ways of different arts one by one. When you cannot be deceived by men you will have realized the wisdom of strategy.
Old words but still true today. All you have to do is to remember back to the last election; it shouldn’t be that hard.
The Left, the Democrats, and people like Helen see military affairs as bullies using unfair strength against the weak and winning because it is “easy” for the technologically strong to beat on the poor or weak. Warfare has never been easy; it has always required intelligence, cunning, subtleness, determination, will, and resources. Helen [let's say prototypical pacifist and Obama supporter] would say that it isn’t important who pays for the food, so long as the starving are fed. Warriors would say that it isn’t important who pays for the munitions and the weapons, so long as the enemy dies and is defeated. But while warriors have a department called “logistics” to figure out how to get such munitions and weapons, the Helens of the world have no better solution than to appoint an Obama Government to take care of such things for her.
A warrior and student in the way of strategy would ask: “Why do you trust others to do something which you yourself have no clue how to do?” It is one thing for a military commander to say, “I am no good at logistics so let us appoint the bean counter so he can do advanced calculus and clean up our books while I devote my time to what I am best at” and an entirely different thing for that same commander to say, “I have no idea what good or bad logistics are, so I will depend upon this foreign individual, who I have no idea concerning his origins or character, to tell me what is good or bad logistics, and I will of course give him plenipotentiary power to decide what to do concerning logistics”. The former is wisdom while the latter is gross ignorance and stupidity.
“When you cannot be deceived by men you will have realized the wisdom of strategy”…. what makes conservatives different from fake liberals when it comes to being fooled and deceived? Is it because we are immune to con men and lies? Obviously not, for many good people have been conned or drawn into places like Jonestown because of mistakes. We are human and thus we are fallible. So what is the difference, what allows conservatives more than fake liberals to see deception and to say out loud what it is?
Because conservatives, relative to all others, are most likely to study war and history and to actually practice such anachronistic and violent past times as hunting, self-sufficiency camp outs, and marksmanship training. They are students of the Way, not to be confused with the Pacifist Way.
The study of strategy is the study of humanity. The study of humanity is the study of what makes us different and what makes us the same. Identity politics uses such knowledge for evil by increasing the differences between humans in order to bring about power and wealth to an elect elite, like Obama or Helen. The more the differences between human beings become, the greater the chances for conflict, genocide, murder, and war.
That, I will not abide.
THE THREE METHODS TO FORESTALL THE ENEMY
The first is to forestall him by attacking. This is called Ken No Sen (to set him up).
Another method is to forestall him as he attacks. This is called Tai No Sen (to wait for the initiative).
The other method is when you and the enemy attack together. This is called Tai Tai No Sen (to accompany him and forestall him).
There are no methods of taking the lead other than these three. Because you can win quickly by taking the lead, it is one of the most important things in strategy. There are several things involved in taking the lead. You must make the best of the situation, see through the enemy’s spirit so that you grasp his strategy and defeat him. It is impossible to write about this in detail.
THE FIRST—KEN NO SEN
When you decide to attack, keep calm and dash in quickly, forestalling the enemy. Or you can advance seemingly strongly but with a reserved spirit, forestalling him with the reserve.
Alternatively, advance with as strong a spirit as possible, and when you reach the enemy move with your feet a little quicker than normal, unsettling him and overwhelming him sharply.
Or, with your spirit calm, attack with a feeling of constantly crushing the enemy, from first to last. The spirit is to win in the depths of the enemy.
These are all Ken No Sen.
THE SECOND—TAI NO SEN
When the enemy attacks, remain undisturbed but feign weakness. As the enemy reaches you, suddenly move away indicating that you intend to jump aside, then dash in attacking strongly as soon as you see the enemy relax. This is one way.
Or, as the enemy attacks, attack still more strongly, taking advantage of the resulting disorder in his timing to win.
This is the Tai No Sen principle.
THE THIRD—TAI TAI NO SEN
When the enemy makes a quick attack, you must attack strongly and calmly, aim for his weak point as he draws near, and strongly defeat him.
Or, if the enemy attacks calmly, you must observe his movements and, with your body rather floating, join in with his movements as he draws near. Move quickly and cut him strongly.
This is Tai Tai No Sen.
These things cannot be clearly explained in words. You must research what is written here. In these three ways of forestalling, you must judge the situation. This does not mean that you always attack first; but if the enemy attacks first you can lead him around. In strategy, you have effectively won when you forestall the enemy, so you must train well to attain this.