.
VR
Xzavier's Journal



THIS JOURNAL IS ON 144 FAVORITE JOURNAL LISTS

Honor: 0    [ Give / Take ]

PROFILE




11 entries this month
 

23:13 Jun 28 2009
Times Read: 814


Dude and now Billy Mays is dead? This is one messed up month, 5 famous people dead so far.



David Carradine, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson and now Billy Mays.



Mays, 50, died in his sleep after being hit on the head with an object when the plan he was flying blew out it's front tires during landing. There was no obvious sign of trauma.


COMMENTS

-



DarkWolfman
DarkWolfman
23:21 Jun 28 2009

Planes are dangerous.





Dwidget
Dwidget
00:17 Jun 29 2009

Celebrity deaths come in 6 dont they?





 

01:56 Jun 26 2009
Times Read: 858


For those that wish etonline.com has Michael Jackson's last reported photo. It was taken when he was with the EMT's and intubated.



I'm not going to put it in my journal because it may be disturbing to some and because I just don't feel it would be right for me to post it.


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
02:59 Jun 26 2009

ow cmon post it!





LadyKrystalynDarkstar
LadyKrystalynDarkstar
04:09 Jun 26 2009

You did right X. It is disturbing to see him like that in my own opinion. I am sure the photo will circulate enough for everyone to see without it being here. *hugs*





Sidhabhair
Sidhabhair
05:42 Jun 26 2009

Wow that is a graphic photo isn't it :(





Leinth
Leinth
23:47 Jun 28 2009

I can not believe that someone has profited from that footage... I think it is disgraceful.





 

00:03 Jun 26 2009
Times Read: 867


Despite Michael Jacksons young age he did suffer from Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) which causes Atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) much more rapidly than that in the normal population. Because of that and his struggle with substance abuse, media fights and related stresses in hind sight this isn't so surprising.



No matter what though, it's still very tragic and I for one will miss him greatly.


COMMENTS

-



 

23:40 Jun 25 2009
Times Read: 871


"Black June"



David Carradine, Jun 3, 2009

Ed McMahon, June 23, 2009

Farrah Fawcett, June 25, 2009 (9:15AM)

Michael Jackson, June 25, 2009 (3:15PM)



What a month. Rest In Peace.


COMMENTS

-



imagesinwords
imagesinwords
23:43 Jun 25 2009

Yeah, absolutely insanely horrible.





voodoochile
voodoochile
02:15 Jun 26 2009

AND it is not over yet...





 

22:29 Jun 22 2009
Times Read: 881


Zogby Poll Finds Nationwide Support for Secession



A new national survey has found surprisingly strong support for secession in the United States.




More than 20 per cent of American adults - one in every five - agrees that “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.” Another similar percentage (18.2 per cent) even says that they “would support a secessionist effort in my state.”



The support for secession held true for every region in the country, though the percentage was slightly higher in the South (25.8) and the East (23.6). The figures were also consistent for every age group, but backing was strongest among younger adults, as high as 39.9 per cent in the 18-24 year category and 23.6 for 25-34 year olds.



Broken down by race, the highest percentage agreeing with the right to secede was among Hispanics (42.6) and African-Americans (39.5), with “other and mixed” accounting for 21.1 per cent and whites 17.1 per cent. On the question of giving support to secessionist efforts, slightly more blacks (32.7 per cent) than Hispanics (31.6) agreed, with 20.2 per cent “other” and 14.5 per cent white.



The currently faltering economy may have played a part in the endorsement of states’ right to secede, with 18.7 per cent of those considering themselves in the “investor class” agreeing, along with 21.2 per cent of non-investors.



To gauge the extent to which support for secession comes from a sense that the country as it is now made up is not working, a separate question was asked about agreement that “the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.” As many as 44.3 per cent agreed strongly or somewhat, as against 29.9 per cent who strongly disagreed.



The poll, taken by the well-known Zogby International pollsters, was conducted among 1209 American adults, contacted July 9-13, 2008 through an omnibus telephone survey nationwide. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 per cent.



The sponsor of the poll was the Middlebury Institute, a think tank "for the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination," based in Cold Spring, NY (MiddleburyInstitute.org).



July 15, 2008



Kirkpatrick Sale

Director, Middlebury Institute

MiddleburyInstitute.org

_________________________________________________________________





Related Links:

Southern National Congress, www.southernnationalcongress.org



Second Vermont Republic, www.vermontrepublic.org



Alaska Independence Party, www.akip.org



Hawai'i Secession, www.freehawaii.org or www.hawaii-nation.org

COMMENTS

-



 

10:17 Jun 17 2009
Times Read: 921


As I was leaving Steak n' Shake I heard several people talking using the words fag, fagot, queers and a few others.



Those words ARE the same as nigger, spick and pretty much any other negative word you can think of. If you are in a private place such as your home I really don't care what words you use nor the context of them but if you are anywhere that another person might be you better watch your language.



It doesn't matter if the person hearing you is a 'fag' or not but they might know a gay person or they may simply be a decent individual and hearing derogatory language offends them.



You people need to learn a lesson and learn it hard, watch your language and grow up. A bunch of "tough" guys killed Matthew Shepard as fast as a bunch of queers can knock your ass to the floor and one day that might just happen.



I'm not a violent person but I, along with everyone else, has limits and I do not tolerate a bunch of ignorant fools acting like gods rejects.



Make sure everything that leaves your lips, regardless of intent, is positive and can't be misconstrued or hurtful to another person when those words have so much charged energy around them.



I'm not talking about being politically correct I am talking about being a decent person. Make jokes no biggie, but keep your regular language clean. Nigger, fag, fairy, mo, kike etc ...it's about time they left the common vernacular and remained relegated to blue comedy, interpersonal communication and perhaps one day gone for good.



Grow up, this is 2009 not 1855.



Trust me this is one limp wristed fairy who isn't afraid to break a nail busting your face wide open. This stuff is pathetic as are the ones who engage in such ridiculousness.


COMMENTS

-



Sinora
Sinora
11:00 Jun 17 2009

I'm with you 100% on that hon.





Theban
Theban
11:15 Jun 17 2009

Interesting comment, I have no issues with anyone who can walk the walk and talk the talk. I don't know you, I'm aware of you here on the Rave and you appear intelligent. That's why I know that you are aware of freedom of speech....lol



It's all just words...words...weakness is allowing others to manipulate your thoughts by their actions!



N####rs can call each other a N####r, but a white person isn't allowed....A Homosexual can call another Gay, but when a straight person calls a gay person gay they don't like it! There are many other examples of discrimination as I know you will be aware of.



So yes it is 2009, and my Gay friends don't mind my humour when I say “slack jawed faggot” to them. However I'm aware that others who don't know me or my humour would possibly take it as an insult lol



Chill out and don't let the Homophobics grind you down!





DarkWolfman
DarkWolfman
11:16 Jun 17 2009

Some people are born without manners others think it is funny to call people names.On the other hand some people were never taught the meaning of respect.





ladySnowStrixx
ladySnowStrixx
14:24 Jun 17 2009

Well , hell its about time , Thank you ,I agree with you completely , people have no idea who they are talking in hearing of and it could be there own family .





voodoochile
voodoochile
15:12 Jun 17 2009

Hmmm, much could be said both ways. That of public displays of idiocy and freedom of speach.



My take is one of change. If I want someone to stop doing something, I ask them. If they are rude then they get ignored. If they get physical, they get choked out or joint locked. Each progressive level is one of escalation, both from a personal hurt level and a physical one.



Discrimination happens unfortunately. But consider this, if we take out every thing from a society that offends us, we have no basis for comparison to see the joy. It is like having ice cream for every meal. Eventually you get sick of ice cream. So contrasting views or bias is a good thing in my opinion. It lets me know I am alive and well. It is only when someone uses that bias in a negative way to alter my personal space, path or belief in a way that is aggressive and unwanted, without me the ability to leave.





PandorasBx
PandorasBx
16:27 Jun 17 2009

Pure ignorance and disgusting...





xXPoisonousAddictionXx
xXPoisonousAddictionXx
20:17 Jun 17 2009

yep, you don't have to be gay or be related to an offensive name for it to be offensive to u, when you know people it does offend.

Besides you :), my best friend is gay so I know what he goes through that others don't see, so when u hear ur stuff like that it hurts you just because u see what it does to others, and it angers u that its fucktards like that who are responsible.





Xzavier
Xzavier
20:55 Jun 17 2009

Freedom of Speech isn't an unlimited freedom, it never has been.



I said that in joking it was fine but this case wasn't a joke nor was it just a regular conversation where they used the word(s) once or twice. They said them at least 2 dozen times and in an obvious negative way.



If I use the word nigger or (because I'm gay) fag and it's obvious that I'm not using it in a negative way or at least that it isn't a definite insult then there can be plenty of "wiggle room" for being able to use it.



What I'm talking about is it's negative usage and that isn't cool, nor is it a right. Our rights only go so far as to when they're not causing harm to others, the definition of harm of course can be for another conversation. I was with 3 other people (none of them gay) and they all agreed that these jackasses weren't just being your regular idiots.



Words may 'just' be words but they carry power, no matter how we try to deny it. And if a word or group of words promote hate, ignorance, etc then the people who use them in that context should be corrected.





 

22:25 Jun 15 2009
Times Read: 937


A lot of people talk about how much we know about our planet, how little natural space there is left for exploration and the amount of damage we've done to our environment.



While there is little doubt that we have had a negative effect on the Earth (but also many positive ones) the idea that there is no more room for growth or exploration is completely false.



The Earth has around 319,253,333 CUBIC miles of inhabitable space (for people, animals, above water and under water, not including the 20 miles in crustal depth that bacteria can live). If you were to give every human an acre you would only take up 10,468,750sq miles or less than the area of North America. That's a population of 6.7 billion in N. America allowing everyone to have the space needed for crops and meat for a diet of approx. 30% meat 70% plant matter (includes crops for animals). Basically to feed every human on the most excessive diet possible you could house, feed and everything else everyone alive using the land of N. America plus Brazil leaving Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and most of S. America.

So you see it's a matter of how we use the land not a matter of over population.



Now, I say all of that to get to the real purpose of this.



The Earth is huge, in fact it's so large that hundreds to thousands of new species are found every year. Many folks believe or question the possible existence of 'Bigfoot' or other large animals and many others use the flawed argument that there are so many people and so little natural space that it would be impossible for any large animal to hide and not be discovered.



While in some areas of the world (such as around major cities or nations smaller than a few hundred sq. miles) this may be true, in reality, it's very possible.



To help understand how let me share this bit of information with you.



The Blue Whale is the largest animal to have ever lived including dinosaurs. The Blue Whale can weigh in excess of 380,000lbs! We have known of this animal for many many years and we have been actively studying it from a conservationist stand point for decades. This creature is so large at times it can only be seen from the air until it surfaces. We tag them with radio tags, follow their movements by satellite and spend countless days following them side by side. We do all of this and yet we still do not know their full range nor do we have any clue as to where they go to breed.



Since that's the case with the Blue Whale is it not possible that we could have "Bigfoots", ship swallowing squids and even evolved forms of dinosaurs (aka Loch Ness Monster, Pterosaurs etc) that live basically under our nose without discovery as of yet? Or perhaps they have been seen but still haven't been scientifically classified.



The moral of this story is, don't dismiss tales of strange creatures until you've had the ability to search the entire planet more than a mile above and below sea level.



I hope that gives you something to think about.


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
00:42 Jun 16 2009

uh huh....so your saying you believe in bigfoot? lol





Xzavier
Xzavier
00:47 Jun 16 2009

I don't recall saying I did.





 

20:56 Jun 14 2009
Times Read: 961


Really I have nothing to say other than ~this is not good~.












COMMENTS

-



thebatt
thebatt
20:59 Jun 14 2009

eep... that isn't good at all.





PandorasBx
PandorasBx
21:06 Jun 14 2009

Holy crap, thats sad and frightening...





MBK
MBK
22:32 Jun 14 2009

Lol we're all fucked.





chrysanthemia
chrysanthemia
00:28 Jun 15 2009

That actually depresses me.





xxEmaeraldxx
xxEmaeraldxx
21:57 Jun 15 2009

That is one of the best reasons I have seen why we must re-educate people in environmental issues and make Organisations consider alternatives instead of ruining our environment. People have to take responsibility for this as we simply cannot look the other way any more.





 

22:53 Jun 10 2009
Times Read: 1,002


~University survey finds Conservatives more likely to read opposing and different views than Liberals~



People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.



“It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they’re more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments,” Knobloch-Westerwick noted…



The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists’ political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which “liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both,” Davis said.



Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.



http://www.poligazette.com/2009/06/09/conservatives-more-open-to-different-opinions/comment-page-1/



or



http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/08/study-conservatives-more-likely-to-read-opposing-viewpoints-than-liberals/





-----------------------------------------------------------------



Full story:





News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.





The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.



Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.





"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."





That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.





However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.





News that fits your views





Previous studies have asked people about their news reading habits and broad political beliefs, such as liberal or conservative.





But the new Ohio State study took that a step further by observing how 156 college students spent five minutes reading online magazine articles on a computer. The computer recorded the time each student spent looking at pro and con articles about four issues that included abortion, gun ownership, health care and minimum wage.





"A survey isn't the greatest way to get hold of issues," Knobloch-Westerwick told LiveScience. "In my study, we just had people click on things so that we could watch unobtrusively."





As a result, she found that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view. They had a 58 percent chance of choosing articles that supported their views, as opposed to a 43 percent chance of choosing an article that challenged their view.





Students also commonly spent time reading both sides on any given issue, according to the study, which is detailed in the June issue of the journal Communication Research. However, very few clicked just on articles that opposed their views.





How political junkies read





Only 5 percent of online news readers go to political blogs on a daily basis, according to a new book by a different researcher, yet many represent the most politically active consumers of the news.





Such readers may prefer blogs over mainstream media sources because they suspect bias in the latter, said Richard Davis, a political scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.





"They're clearly disenchanted with traditional media," Davis said. "That's why they read blogs in the first place - in their view, they see blogs as more accurate."





Davis worked with several independent firms to conduct nationally representative public opinion surveys of both political blog readers and journalists for his book, "Typing Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2009). He also focused on seven of the top political blogs, which at the time included Daily Kos on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right.





Such political blogs are up front with their political views, and typically "echo" the news reported by traditional journalists while adding their own spin or analysis.



But among the hardcore political junkies, 30 percent told the survey that blogs are more accurate, whereas only 8 percent said traditional media was more accurate. About 40 percent gave equal marks to both.



This trust in blogs over traditional media does not carry over to general readers, Davis cautioned. Less frequent blog readers usually give equal weight to blogs and traditional media. And overall, general readers still put more faith in traditional media.



Conservatives buck the trend



Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.



People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.



"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.



However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.



The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.



Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.



Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.



By contrast, liberal views dominate the blogosphere, but are scant on talk radio.



Winning hearts and minds ... or not



The big question that remains is whether consuming all this news affects or changes people's views, or simply hardens original beliefs.



Experts have fretted for a while about how people tend to read only what agrees with them. But current research suggests that it's amazing that people ever change their views, Knobloch-Westerwick said.



Some researchers have even begun examining how political leanings are rooted in biology, and the combined influences of genetics or life experiences. A separate recent study suggests that men with more daughters are more likely to take a liberal point of view, while women who have more sons may lean more conservative.



Still, having hardened political views bolstered by media messages might not represent all bad news for a democratic society.



"People who spend more time with messages that bolster their views are more likely to engage in political action, something that's very desirable from a democratic point of view," Knobloch-Westerwick said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090608/sc_livescience/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
23:50 Jun 10 2009

so i guess that makes you a liberal in a conservative shell lol





meeper
meeper
02:31 Jun 11 2009

That being said, do they still believe in the Hussien Laden connection?





 

06:12 Jun 10 2009
Times Read: 1,023


The Milky Way galaxy's weight in peanuts is approx.



1,894,167,851,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nuts. In scientific notation it would be 1.8941678512e+44.



Now the numbers will varry slightly depending on which values you used but that's pretty darn close.



I used the following:

Milky Way = 5.8 × 10^11 M☉ (Solar Masses)

M☉ = 19.8892^30 kg or 19.8892^34 g

Peanut = 0.609 g



To figure out the universe in peanuts simply multiply the number of nuts for a solar mass (32,658,066,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) by 9 x 10^21. I'll leave that final step for you :)


COMMENTS

-



MBK
MBK
07:20 Jun 10 2009

You lost me at 'approximate'.





voodoochile
voodoochile
12:09 Jun 10 2009

~dies~ You are my friggin hero man!





Sinora
Sinora
12:09 Jun 10 2009

What about the ones that get lost down the side of the chair ?





CAJOME
CAJOME
21:22 Jun 10 2009

Silly boy... a Milky Way doesn't have peanuts... you're thinking of a Snickers!! :p



chrysanthemia
chrysanthemia
22:57 Jun 10 2009

Firstly: ow, my frigging brain.



Secondly: why do you care!?





Xzavier
Xzavier
03:12 Jun 11 2009

Because VooDoochile asked ya hoochie! lol jk You know I'll try to answer any question people ask me..as long as they're nice about it.





ladyakkera
ladyakkera
01:58 Jun 12 2009

Lol, So, how much does the Milky Way weigh in Milky Way candy bars?





 

08:32 Jun 06 2009
Times Read: 1,033


From the Physics Archive of the US Dept. of Energy, 10/12/2005



The question from Tracy J.



"According to one scientist, when

the "Big Bang" occurred the universe multiplied itself by

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in just a fraction of a second.

Now considering light only travels at 186,000 miles per second, I would

think that when the "Big Bang" occurred wouldn't the particles have

traveled much faster than the speed of light, which would therefore

contradict Einstein's theory of relativity?"



AN Answer



"Dear Tracy,



A very good question with a rather subtle answer which I have spent some

time mulling over without, I feel, achieving full understanding.



The basic answer, however, is quite simple. Nothing can travel faster than

the speed of light through space. This does not, however, limit the speed

at which space can expand. In the first 1E-35 seconds (that is 0.00..(34

zeroes)..01 seconds after the big bang the universe expanded to a diameter

of something like 1 meter carrying all matter with it. So it was expanding

something like 3E26 (that is 3 followed by 26 zeroes) times faster than the

speed of light! And that includes the matter that was just sitting there at

rest in space. Although it is not moving relative to space (whatever that

means), a piece of matter can be increasing its distance from another piece

of matter at speeds much faster than the speed of light if the space is

expanding rapidly enough.



An analogy may help (though analogies are never completely accurate). You

have undoubtedly heard of the two dimensional model for the expansion of

space where little bugs are sitting on the surface of a balloon as it is

being blown up. The separation between the bugs can clearly increase even

though the bugs are sitting still.



Best, Dick Plano, Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University"





I thought this would be interesting to some folks.


COMMENTS

-



DarkWolfman
DarkWolfman
08:36 Jun 06 2009

Interesting





voodoochile
voodoochile
12:14 Jun 10 2009

What I don't understand is this. This huge flipping mass that made up the thing that blew up. We know that if you get enough mass together it creates a black hole. Wouldn't this thing just be a super huge black hole? And when is the last time you ever heard of a black hole 'blowing up'? I know they jet streams of x-rays or something but that is different than exploding.








COMPANY
REQUEST HELP
CONTACT US
SITEMAP
REPORT A BUG
UPDATES
LEGAL
TERMS OF SERVICE
PRIVACY POLICY
DMCA POLICY
REAL VAMPIRES LOVE VAMPIRE RAVE
© 2004 - 2024 Vampire Rave
All Rights Reserved.
Vampire Rave is a member of 
Page generated in 0.095 seconds.
X
Username:

Password:
I agree to Vampire Rave's Privacy Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's Terms of Service.
I agree to Vampire Rave's DMCA Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's use of Cookies.
•  SIGN UP •  GET PASSWORD •  GET USERNAME  •
X