drugs are fun when they're used sparingly to enhance the effects of events and experiences, but being addicted to drugs is a type of self-induced slavery, a type that the people around a drug addict have no responsibility to bear the effects of.
i don't care if this woman gets the help she needs to control her addiction.
i just want her carcinogenic, nausea-inducing, rancid shit out of my face.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
again: it's like 2 hours of chain-smoking marijuana.
this happens several times a week.
and, all i can do is bring this journal to court as evidence of how terribly it's affecting my quality of life, and my enjoyment of the space.
this happens several times a week.
and, all i can do is bring this journal to court as evidence of how terribly it's affecting my quality of life, and my enjoyment of the space.
at
22:29
it's 10:00 pm on a fucking tuesday.
people do things like shower and read at 10:00 on a tuesday.
they don't sit around and get so fucking stoned they can't see.
you fucking loser...
and, it's like....be a fucking loser...i don't care...but go be a fucking loser in a parking lot, or in a field. don't do it somewhere where everybody else has to fucking deal with it.
you self-centered, worthless piece of shit.
it just makes me so fucking angry that these people can still exist, that people are raised so fucking terribly that they lack basic concepts of decency and respect for the people around them - or the self-respect to not be responsible for stinking up the whole goddamned block.
how does somebody have such little respect for themself that they don't care if people have made multiple requests to stop fucking blazing all the time? how can people have such little regard for their own integrity that they can look somebody in the eye and say "i am a habitual marijuana smoker, and i don't care if it makes everybody else sick".
it's revolting.
repulsive.
and remarkable that anybody could sanction this kind of behaviour.
there is no excuse for this. there really isn't.
people do things like shower and read at 10:00 on a tuesday.
they don't sit around and get so fucking stoned they can't see.
you fucking loser...
and, it's like....be a fucking loser...i don't care...but go be a fucking loser in a parking lot, or in a field. don't do it somewhere where everybody else has to fucking deal with it.
you self-centered, worthless piece of shit.
it just makes me so fucking angry that these people can still exist, that people are raised so fucking terribly that they lack basic concepts of decency and respect for the people around them - or the self-respect to not be responsible for stinking up the whole goddamned block.
how does somebody have such little respect for themself that they don't care if people have made multiple requests to stop fucking blazing all the time? how can people have such little regard for their own integrity that they can look somebody in the eye and say "i am a habitual marijuana smoker, and i don't care if it makes everybody else sick".
it's revolting.
repulsive.
and remarkable that anybody could sanction this kind of behaviour.
there is no excuse for this. there really isn't.
at
22:25
yeah, well go read somebody else's blog if you don't like my attitude. i don't fucking care.
i hate this woman, i hate this place and i hate this situation.
it's disgusting. through and through. revolting.
yuck.
i hate this woman, i hate this place and i hate this situation.
it's disgusting. through and through. revolting.
yuck.
at
22:11
then they claim she's "depressed".
well, maybe if she'd get off her ass and stop smoking so much pot and lose some fucking weight then she'd be less depressed, huh?
don't let them tell you it's "medicinal".
she's just a worthless, piece of shit drug addict.
well, maybe if she'd get off her ass and stop smoking so much pot and lose some fucking weight then she'd be less depressed, huh?
don't let them tell you it's "medicinal".
she's just a worthless, piece of shit drug addict.
at
22:05
i need to reiterate: the problem here is not access to this drug. most users are responsible.
the problem here is that this worthless piece of shit is too inconsiderate to go for a walk.
the problem here is that this worthless piece of shit is too inconsiderate to go for a walk.
at
21:58
yeah, she's blazing tonight.
disgusting.
thankfully, the windows are able to be left wide open, so it's just more that it smells like a cat being raped than anything else, but the absolute revulsion of the stench is itself fairly horrific.
hopefully, she's gone, soon.
disgusting.
thankfully, the windows are able to be left wide open, so it's just more that it smells like a cat being raped than anything else, but the absolute revulsion of the stench is itself fairly horrific.
hopefully, she's gone, soon.
at
21:46
no, this is an old argument for me, because i used to get accused of being a pessimist all of the time. it's actually not even true.
whenever pessimism vs optimism is presented to you, what is actually being presented to you is really just a false dichotomy, but it's intriguing because it obscures a more fundamental division, which is realism vs magical thinking. pessimists and optimists are really two sides of the same coin: they're both existing in the realm of fantasy, of magical thinking, of utter delusion. the real counter to both optimism and pessimism (which are the same thing...) is realism.
the volume of water in the glass is 50% of it's maximum capacity.
get it?
whenever pessimism vs optimism is presented to you, what is actually being presented to you is really just a false dichotomy, but it's intriguing because it obscures a more fundamental division, which is realism vs magical thinking. pessimists and optimists are really two sides of the same coin: they're both existing in the realm of fantasy, of magical thinking, of utter delusion. the real counter to both optimism and pessimism (which are the same thing...) is realism.
the volume of water in the glass is 50% of it's maximum capacity.
get it?
at
20:48
i'm not interested in high roads and low roads, i'm interested in facts and truth and empiricism and statistics and numerical analysis.
and, i don't care if the truth hurts your feelings.
sorry.
and, i don't care if the truth hurts your feelings.
sorry.
at
20:23
so, what do we know about doug ford so far, anyways?
- he opposes an imaginary carbon tax
- he was going to open the greenbelt to development, but then decided not to *winkwink*
- he wants to cut taxes for people that don't pay taxes
- he wants alcohol & marijuana in corner stores
- he's going to slash revenues, and has no idea how he's going to pay for it.
- he's supposedly opposed to teaching sex ed in schools
- he opposes safe injection sites & wants to spend billions of public dollars on helping addicts
i thought "strong economic leadership" didn't make any sense. how do you campaign against this? how do you campaign for this?
have you seen idiocracy?
i'm not really in support of carbon taxes, but nobody is actually proposing one; i don't think poor people should pay taxes, but we already don't....and i don't have any particular aversion to beer at the corner store, but it's hardly a ballot question. nor do i really care about deficits.
the sex ed thing is a red flag, but i'm not sure how seriously i can take a guy that wants to eliminate sex ed and liberalize alcohol sales. it's a rather confused muslim that votes for that, isn't it? i'm thinking he's more likely to open a beer store across the street from your mosque than he is to protect your kids from their own sexuality.
the most contentious thing seems to be the billions wasted on trying to save addicts, which i'd argue would be better spent elsewhere - and closing these injection sites, which save taxpayers billions by stopping the spread of diseases. but, this doesn't seem to be very consistent with conservative party policy, does it?
so, the weird thing about doug ford is that he might not be that different from kathleen wynne, really. he keeps saying he'll carry through with what she's doing. the deficits might just be a little bigger. and, the policies might actually be a little more liberal.
i'm not endorsing this guy; i realize his aim is to sell off the province. but, this is the era we're in. would he move faster than the liberals or the ndp in selling off resources? who knows, really. all he really sold off in toronto was the garbage collection, right?
i'm never going to vote for the conservatives, myself; it's ideological, really. but, he seems less scary and more just kind of daft. and, i'm getting the impression that he's going to sleepwalk through a term or two and then fall asleep at the door on his way out.
- he opposes an imaginary carbon tax
- he was going to open the greenbelt to development, but then decided not to *winkwink*
- he wants to cut taxes for people that don't pay taxes
- he wants alcohol & marijuana in corner stores
- he's going to slash revenues, and has no idea how he's going to pay for it.
- he's supposedly opposed to teaching sex ed in schools
- he opposes safe injection sites & wants to spend billions of public dollars on helping addicts
i thought "strong economic leadership" didn't make any sense. how do you campaign against this? how do you campaign for this?
have you seen idiocracy?
i'm not really in support of carbon taxes, but nobody is actually proposing one; i don't think poor people should pay taxes, but we already don't....and i don't have any particular aversion to beer at the corner store, but it's hardly a ballot question. nor do i really care about deficits.
the sex ed thing is a red flag, but i'm not sure how seriously i can take a guy that wants to eliminate sex ed and liberalize alcohol sales. it's a rather confused muslim that votes for that, isn't it? i'm thinking he's more likely to open a beer store across the street from your mosque than he is to protect your kids from their own sexuality.
the most contentious thing seems to be the billions wasted on trying to save addicts, which i'd argue would be better spent elsewhere - and closing these injection sites, which save taxpayers billions by stopping the spread of diseases. but, this doesn't seem to be very consistent with conservative party policy, does it?
so, the weird thing about doug ford is that he might not be that different from kathleen wynne, really. he keeps saying he'll carry through with what she's doing. the deficits might just be a little bigger. and, the policies might actually be a little more liberal.
i'm not endorsing this guy; i realize his aim is to sell off the province. but, this is the era we're in. would he move faster than the liberals or the ndp in selling off resources? who knows, really. all he really sold off in toronto was the garbage collection, right?
i'm never going to vote for the conservatives, myself; it's ideological, really. but, he seems less scary and more just kind of daft. and, i'm getting the impression that he's going to sleepwalk through a term or two and then fall asleep at the door on his way out.
at
19:31
again: i don't see a reason to think that we're dealing with large shifts, just yet. i still think we have a lot of people that haven't decided, and it's producing funny polls.
but, i don't know of a scenario in ontario where the ndp finished second and the conservatives finished first.
the 2011 federal election is probably not the best predictor, because the conservatives polled relatively high and the ndp & liberals split almost cleanly. that doesn't appear to be likely this time.
i suspect the numbers may in the end look a little more like the 2008 federal election, although it's not clear which party will end up in second and which will end up in third. the numbers then were:
conservatives - 39% / 52 seats
liberals - 34% / 38 seats
ndp - 18% / 17 seats
it's dangerous to invert the liberals & ndp and conclude they'll end up with the same number of seats after the inversion; if the ndp are running at 34% and the liberals are running at 18%, you can't really conclude that the ndp will get 38 seats or the liberals will get 17 seats.
but, i think this is the type of parliament we're on the way towards - one where the conservatives have a plurality of seats, but the ndp & liberals together have a majority.
while the fake polling isn't a convincing argument, i'm beginning to concede the point that wynne is burying herself, and that an ndp shift is becoming inevitable - it's just a question of trying to accurately quantify it.
it's way too early to start modelling. but i don't see an obvious parallel, right now.
but, i don't know of a scenario in ontario where the ndp finished second and the conservatives finished first.
the 2011 federal election is probably not the best predictor, because the conservatives polled relatively high and the ndp & liberals split almost cleanly. that doesn't appear to be likely this time.
i suspect the numbers may in the end look a little more like the 2008 federal election, although it's not clear which party will end up in second and which will end up in third. the numbers then were:
conservatives - 39% / 52 seats
liberals - 34% / 38 seats
ndp - 18% / 17 seats
it's dangerous to invert the liberals & ndp and conclude they'll end up with the same number of seats after the inversion; if the ndp are running at 34% and the liberals are running at 18%, you can't really conclude that the ndp will get 38 seats or the liberals will get 17 seats.
but, i think this is the type of parliament we're on the way towards - one where the conservatives have a plurality of seats, but the ndp & liberals together have a majority.
while the fake polling isn't a convincing argument, i'm beginning to concede the point that wynne is burying herself, and that an ndp shift is becoming inevitable - it's just a question of trying to accurately quantify it.
it's way too early to start modelling. but i don't see an obvious parallel, right now.
at
18:49
so, this is a good demonstration of the absurdity of applying a universal swing.
even if it is true that the liberals are down 15 points and the ndp are up 15 points, it won't apply to every riding. and, i think there's reason to believe that the way it will apply will not particularly help the ndp a lot at all.
we'll see, though.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4212098/ontario-election-simulation-map/
even if it is true that the liberals are down 15 points and the ndp are up 15 points, it won't apply to every riding. and, i think there's reason to believe that the way it will apply will not particularly help the ndp a lot at all.
we'll see, though.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4212098/ontario-election-simulation-map/
at
18:32
i'm just imagining the scenario of a drunk person looking for a beer at 12:30.
if they're in town, they can find a bar. do i think it makes any difference if they try to get served at a bar or a store? well, you're going to run into hardasses either way, right. some bars serve anybody. some stores are pretty strict. the rules are going to be the same in either circumstance. so, what actual difference does it make? the server is a random variable, and you're just applying a prejudice towards one type or another.
you could argue that the bartender knows now much they've had to drink - which is true until they go to another bar.
maybe the more enlightened perspective is to put responsibility for drunkeness on the drunk, and not on the servers?
now, suppose this person is not in town. there may be a store a mile away, but the nearest bar is 20 miles away. is it a better idea to tell them to drive to the bar or let them pick it up at the store?
i'm not suggesting that this is a pressing issue; i'm not going to vote for or against beer in corner stores. i don't really care one way or another. but, kathleen wynne is embarrassing herself, and doing an incredible disservice to her party brand in thrusting out unfounded right-wing scare-mongering.
we need rational discourse, not the perpetuation of poorly thought through absurdities designed to act at the emotional level.
wynne isn't just running on an ndp platform, she's acting like an ndp leader. she's perpetuating all of the reasons i tend to avoid voting for this party, without really encapsulating any of the reasons i might think about it.....
even using the term "progressive" is bizarre. liberals are not "progressives", they're liberals. we fought prohibition, we didn't enact it. the ndp are progressives, in the prairie gospel sense. the conservatives are progressives in the populist farmers sense. the liberals are not and never have been nor have ever had anything to do with progressive politics.
the liberals may indeed require an extended period in the wilderness to figure out who they are. it's a shame. based purely on policy, they seemed to be doing alright. then, the writ dropped and it exposed a party that doesn't know what it is, any more.
i still don't really want to vote for the ndp. i want to vote for the liberals. but, the liberals don't seem to understand what being a liberal means any more....
i dunno what to do.
i don't think the conservatives are serious contenders in this riding, so it probably doesn't matter if i stay home.
if they're in town, they can find a bar. do i think it makes any difference if they try to get served at a bar or a store? well, you're going to run into hardasses either way, right. some bars serve anybody. some stores are pretty strict. the rules are going to be the same in either circumstance. so, what actual difference does it make? the server is a random variable, and you're just applying a prejudice towards one type or another.
you could argue that the bartender knows now much they've had to drink - which is true until they go to another bar.
maybe the more enlightened perspective is to put responsibility for drunkeness on the drunk, and not on the servers?
now, suppose this person is not in town. there may be a store a mile away, but the nearest bar is 20 miles away. is it a better idea to tell them to drive to the bar or let them pick it up at the store?
i'm not suggesting that this is a pressing issue; i'm not going to vote for or against beer in corner stores. i don't really care one way or another. but, kathleen wynne is embarrassing herself, and doing an incredible disservice to her party brand in thrusting out unfounded right-wing scare-mongering.
we need rational discourse, not the perpetuation of poorly thought through absurdities designed to act at the emotional level.
wynne isn't just running on an ndp platform, she's acting like an ndp leader. she's perpetuating all of the reasons i tend to avoid voting for this party, without really encapsulating any of the reasons i might think about it.....
even using the term "progressive" is bizarre. liberals are not "progressives", they're liberals. we fought prohibition, we didn't enact it. the ndp are progressives, in the prairie gospel sense. the conservatives are progressives in the populist farmers sense. the liberals are not and never have been nor have ever had anything to do with progressive politics.
the liberals may indeed require an extended period in the wilderness to figure out who they are. it's a shame. based purely on policy, they seemed to be doing alright. then, the writ dropped and it exposed a party that doesn't know what it is, any more.
i still don't really want to vote for the ndp. i want to vote for the liberals. but, the liberals don't seem to understand what being a liberal means any more....
i dunno what to do.
i don't think the conservatives are serious contenders in this riding, so it probably doesn't matter if i stay home.
at
17:03
i'm not saying it's necessarily inaccurate.
but, because it's not scientific, it would only be accurate by chance.
but, because it's not scientific, it would only be accurate by chance.
at
16:29
i know you might like what they say, but the fact remains: "online polls" are not polls.
sorry.
we're due for an update after the weekend, but it's not in yet.
sorry.
we're due for an update after the weekend, but it's not in yet.
at
16:27
i stopped this morning right before i got to the end of season 5.
there's now less than 2 months and less than two hundred pages before i get to the hookup with the blog, and the project flips over to archiving...
the audio closure also began in mid 2016, meaning i should be able to do some alter-reality work soon, too.
i wanted to eat and get to looking through listings this morning. instead, i crashed hard after the smoothie and feel like i should wait until tomorrow.
i wasn't as productive over the second half of the weekend as i'd have liked to have been. and all the listings i saw last week were for july...if can get a good 24 hours in, i think that's a better use of time tonight....
how's the air quality?
it's sporadic. she smoked a nasty joint last night, and it was still lingering deep into the morning. as mentioned, i slept all day - and i'm waking up feeling pretty awful. but, what i am is dehydrated, and i actually think it's partially from the air conditioner.
we're getting some nice hot & humid days this week, so i should be able to keep the windows open to fight the air. it really hasn't been warm enough out to turn the a/c on at all this spring. again: i don't understand these people. you turn the a/c on when it's 20 degrees out? what? i'd still have the heat on...20 degrees is cold...
what i'm going to say is that she's stopped smoking, except when it's raining. of course, that's the worst, because i can't always open the windows in the rain. but, you have to keep in mind that she has no legal obligation to smoke outside, either. this is a frustrating situation where nobody seems to know what the law is, and nobody seems to much care what it would be, if they did. it makes it difficult to react legally; neither the tenants nor the landlords care about the law or behave in ways consistent with it or intend to have to deal with it. anarchism isn't the idea that we don't follow laws, it's the idea that we don't need cops to force us to, and they're actually both failing that test, here - these are people that need a state to tell them what to do, because they can't figure it out on their own.
so, the landlord is illegally asking her to smoke outside, and she's mostly doing it, but it's not any kind of real solution. when she does decide to smoke inside, it lingers for days and makes me sick. the landlord is refusing to implement a real solution, which would be patching up the holes in the floor. he's really behaving illegally towards both of us, creating this false scenario of imaginary compromise. and, i think he's clueless enough to show up in court and say "i asked her to smoke outside...." and think that absolves him of liability. it doesn't. if he's not going to fix the floors, he needs to pay me out.
so, i'm going to work until i'm so hungry i have to stop.
there's now less than 2 months and less than two hundred pages before i get to the hookup with the blog, and the project flips over to archiving...
the audio closure also began in mid 2016, meaning i should be able to do some alter-reality work soon, too.
i wanted to eat and get to looking through listings this morning. instead, i crashed hard after the smoothie and feel like i should wait until tomorrow.
i wasn't as productive over the second half of the weekend as i'd have liked to have been. and all the listings i saw last week were for july...if can get a good 24 hours in, i think that's a better use of time tonight....
how's the air quality?
it's sporadic. she smoked a nasty joint last night, and it was still lingering deep into the morning. as mentioned, i slept all day - and i'm waking up feeling pretty awful. but, what i am is dehydrated, and i actually think it's partially from the air conditioner.
we're getting some nice hot & humid days this week, so i should be able to keep the windows open to fight the air. it really hasn't been warm enough out to turn the a/c on at all this spring. again: i don't understand these people. you turn the a/c on when it's 20 degrees out? what? i'd still have the heat on...20 degrees is cold...
what i'm going to say is that she's stopped smoking, except when it's raining. of course, that's the worst, because i can't always open the windows in the rain. but, you have to keep in mind that she has no legal obligation to smoke outside, either. this is a frustrating situation where nobody seems to know what the law is, and nobody seems to much care what it would be, if they did. it makes it difficult to react legally; neither the tenants nor the landlords care about the law or behave in ways consistent with it or intend to have to deal with it. anarchism isn't the idea that we don't follow laws, it's the idea that we don't need cops to force us to, and they're actually both failing that test, here - these are people that need a state to tell them what to do, because they can't figure it out on their own.
so, the landlord is illegally asking her to smoke outside, and she's mostly doing it, but it's not any kind of real solution. when she does decide to smoke inside, it lingers for days and makes me sick. the landlord is refusing to implement a real solution, which would be patching up the holes in the floor. he's really behaving illegally towards both of us, creating this false scenario of imaginary compromise. and, i think he's clueless enough to show up in court and say "i asked her to smoke outside...." and think that absolves him of liability. it doesn't. if he's not going to fix the floors, he needs to pay me out.
so, i'm going to work until i'm so hungry i have to stop.
at
14:42
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)