It always amazes me when a group of talent has been around for so long, yet never makes it into the general public awareness.

Not super impressed with their rhythms, but that coupled with the clean vocals reminds me of early Stone Temple Pilots (admittedly 15 years later, but still one of my favorite bands).

It's upsetting that I can't think of another late-career band that 'made it big' decades after touring. Victims of the market, I suppose, with this stupid fetish for only picking up the new, young acts. Otherwise these guys would be pretty ripe for some audiences today.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check out their other stuff for certain.

I lived in many places in SF from 2001-2011, TL, SOMA, Bernal Heights, Lower-Haight and for a longer while in the Mission.

Never paid more than $550.

Been living in Oakland the last year - have a house 2 small blocks from BART, 1 stop to SF (although there is no need) 7 bedrooms, 2 roommates, 3 bathrooms, 2 living rooms, large backyard (with many fantastic substances growing), laundry room... and still do not pay over $550 and Oakland is where all the cool people are anyway these days + Quality of life in my opinion is much better especially because the cost of living is a lot lower since I'm not being nickel & dimed (One Dollared) everywhere I go. I can walk to work without any fucking stupid fucks saying a fucking word to me, I could take the bus and not sit in fucking piss & blood and it isn't crowded usually 1 or 2 people on the bus.

Been in SF a few times over the year to see Acid Mother's Temple, Meshuggah and also Panda Bear live...but Oakland even has better Mexican food so it's increasingly off my radar.

Sagemind is right. The breed is not to be trusted for anything more than what it was originally bred for: An ornament at temples, and for it's meat and hide when it failed to perform as a suitable ornament. It's a crap breed for a domesticated companion. Overly protective of it's initial, imprinted-upon trainer and a wild-card to strangers.

Your video, The Temple (Filmed at Burning Man), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes. I don't think the Church ought to act as an agent of the State. If people really want the State to recognize their marriage, they can go to a Justice of the Peace. If they want a church (mosque, temple, etc.) wedding they can arrange that where they worship. I would vote for that in a heartbeat.

The temple gave me a place to help find closure from the death of a friend.

I will be forever thankful for the Temple.

Dear Temple of Transition

I'm sorry but the first movie is a feat of amazing proportions. It was dark and awesome with cool setting and art direction, filmed like a serious movie and it's soundtrack was AMAZINGLY corny to be put with that dark backdrop. I mean come on Sam Rockwell is in it as a little thug, that's amazing.

I still watch the first one to this day and it was the only movie poster I've ever had on my wall, I loved that movie more than any other as a kid. Multiple viewings over the years haven't disappointed me or spoiled me on it unlike nearly every movie including Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones Temple of Doom. April quietly monologuing while she draws these awesome pictures of the Turtles, it's incredible what comic book movie has the balls to do that?

The suits make that movie for me though, they work sooo freaking well. It's just the best, everything about it makes me love it.

When Nirvana came out I was just beginning to transition out of a very sheltered church every Sunday country music loving family. I remember seeing the Nevermind album in a bin outside a music store in the mall and laughing at the absurdity of it. At the time I was rebelling at the weird sounds and antics of country music but I was also rebelling against Grunge music from the thought of it being to popular and trendy among the social outcasts of my own peers that I did not yet identify with. I had started to listen to our local oldies station and was really into the Beach Boys Pet Sounds album when I heard that Kurt had died. Immediately after his passing Mtv would play unplugged quite regularly and thats when I found my appreciation for Nirvana. I became one of there biggest fans which led into other bands like Stone Temple Pilots, Shamshing Pumpkins, Cranberries, Weezer and then later into bands like Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Pixies, and the Flaming LIps. All my musical taste has been shaped and guided by this one band.

My argument is sound, logically, and if it were unsound it would be very easy to point out what the flaw is. I'll elaborate further:

Occams razors states that the theory with the least number of assumptions balanced against its explanatory power should be preferred to an argument with more assumptions and less explanatory power. The question is how do we explain the apparent fine-tuning in the Universe, a "goldilocks zone" for life. Scientists propose the multiverse theory which explains the favorable conditions as just being lucky, in that there are innumerable Universes and we just happen to be in the one that is very favorable for life. The problem with the theory is manifold; one, that is no observable evidence for the theory, and no way to test the theory. Two, it raises more questions than it answers because the mechanism that generates all of the Universes is even more finely tuned than the Universe itself, how did it get there, etc. It simply pushes back the problem another step. Eventually you must get to the point where a miracle occurs..ie, something came from nothing, or an eternal something which is infinitely fine tuned. According to Occams razor, the theory of an eternal Creator of the Universe should be preferred over *multiple* unobserved universes, that the fine tuning we observe isn't just apparent, but actual.

When you ask, why did God not do it "sooner", you do realize that you are making a temporal reference point? The bible says God "began" to do something because we are temporal beings and we think in terms of beginnings and endings, but we have no idea what that looks like in eternity. If your problem is simply with something being eternal, then maybe you haven't thought about the consequences of there not being anything eternal. You have to ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? You are facing two absurdities in this case; either an infinite regress of causes, or something coming from nothing. There has to be something eternal otherwise you are left with positing logically impossible outcomes. So, if there is something eternal, and whatever it is must be infinitely fine-tuned, and it ultimately created this Universe, you might as well call it God because it already possesses many of His attributes. Whichever way you turn, you are facing the Almighty.

The bible tells us why God didn't need to create light first:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

You should ask yourself, why do you object to the possibility of a Creator? Are your arguments just excuses to cover up the plain facts that have already been revealed to you by God, and the expression of your desire not to be accountable to Him? Something to think about..

Aw, no Shirley Temple?

@newtboy
fair enough my man.
personally i find the ignore button an un-necessary appendage.it serves no purpose other than to keep my own personal echo chamber free from dissenting voices.

no fun in that at all.

and as you stated.you still see his comments when someone quotes him.so why bother?

while i am reluctant to speak for @chingalera ,allow me to back up my argument in regards to how ya'all are making his case.

i shall channel choggie and attempt to translate his verbal perusings in order to make my case:

QUOTE:"I revel in the destruction of formulaic redundancy, especially when the phenomena occurs from time to time on the sift when a small contingent of back-patters load the place with atheism=great, Christians, etc. (insert faith-based philosophies) =shit, and most political offerings in the form of republicans/conservatives=shit, democrats/liberals=my-shit-doesn't-stink-like-theirs videos. "

TRANSLATION: i detest know-it-all's and will go on the offensive to show them the errors of their ways.

QUOTE:"Also a frequent and predictable phenomena, that a single down-vote, tinctured with an alternative perspective in comments, has the gang come spilling from the douche-works like cockroaches to offer their smarmy, childish two-cents, in order to make themselves feeeeel good. Hate this shit. It shows a lack of a certain social evolution from which I instinctively recoil."

TRANSLATION:it only takes that ONE downvote for other like-minded know-it-alls to come out of the woodwork to add their own smug opinion to belittle a person with a different perspective.i find this a form of bullying and it appalls me.

QUOTE:"As to some ' deliberate affectation designed to make me appear intellectual'
You might want to check your own understanding of intellectual versus one's perception of self, I tend not to place much credence in the concept, overrated and ultimately soulless when used to assert one's own importance or place the herd over some one else.
Intelligence in the grand schemata, does not necessarily connote wisdom."

TRANSLATION: i dont know everything and neither do you.

QUOTE:"Quite simply, when I see atheists deride another belief system with childish and derogatory banter like a gang of hyena stealing meat I treat them like a pack of feral creatures and similarly, I tend to shit on people's assumptions of how the world would be a better place if everyone thought the way "I" do regarding politics.

TRANSLATION: i hate bullies and will call them out every time.

QUOTE:"It's fucking tired and boring and makes the place to myself, look like a very untalented graffiti artist used sub-par aerosols to deface a shrine or temple.

TRANSLATION:i am alone but am fully un-impressed with your boring and unoriginal group-think.

@newtboy
so i guess it all comes down to perception and intent.
how you perceive ching and discern his intent.
though he is incredibly verbose and practices the art of flowery language he has been quite clear on his intentions.

let us examine the responses on this thread shall we?
a number here actually discussed openly chings intentions as if he was not part of this thread.

by discerning his intent and then engaging in a group discussion on that assumption has made chings argument.you guys are behaving exactly as ching accuses you all of being guilty of.

i do not have a problem with @chingalera
but nor do i have a problem with you or @VoodooV or @ChaosEngine.(or anybody else for that matter)

but this has become spectacle rather than substance.
now maybe ching bears some responsibility but that burden is not his alone.
you all bear some responsibility as well....
as do i now..

SONOFA........

I revel in the destruction of formulaic redundancy, especially when the phenomena occurs from time to time on the sift when a small contingent of back-patters load the place with atheism=great, Christians, etc. (insert faith-based philosophies) =shit, and most political offerings in the form of republicans/conservatives=shit, democrats/liberals=my-shit-doesn't-stink-like-theirs videos.

Also a frequent and predictable phenomena, that a single down-vote, tinctured with an alternative perspective in comments, has the gang come spilling from the douche-works like cockroaches to offer their smarmy, childish two-cents, in order to make themselves feeeeel good. Hate this shit. It shows a lack of a certain social evolution from which I instinctively recoil.

Your retort here, predictable as well:
Opening with sarcasm, a self-aggrandizing confession followed-up with an insult with reference to my character. Thank you though, for the black hole comparison, gravity and light do not have a chance of escaping me.

As to some ' deliberate affectation designed to make me appear intellectual'
You might want to check your own understanding of intellectual versus one's perception of self, I tend not to place much credence in the concept, overrated and ultimately soulless when used to assert one's own importance or place the herd over some one else.
Intelligence in the grand schemata, does not necessarily connote wisdom.

Quite simply, when I see atheists deride another belief system with childish and derogatory banter like a gang of hyena stealing meat I treat them like a pack of feral creatures and similarly, I tend to shit on people's assumptions of how the world would be a better place if everyone thought the way "I" do regarding politics.

It's fucking tired and boring and makes the place to myself, look like a very untalented graffiti artist used sub-par aerosols to deface a shrine or temple.

Salt Lake City has an odd dichotomy. On the one hand it's the heart of the Mormon church. And if you do go to the temple and meet one of their leaders, he will be an old white man who takes himself way too seriously.

But on the other hand it's also the most liberal and democratic leaning part of Utah. One recent example. Last Friday when the federal court judgement came which struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban. Clerks stayed late at the County Clerk's office and ministers flocked to volunteer to marry the hundreds of gay couples who showed up immediately after the news. I know a very devoted lesbian couple who were married by the mayor of Salt Lake City that night.

You seem to be relying on quite a few assumptions yourself, and this doesn't really deserve a reply (and you probably don't want one anyway), but nonethless -- I've a few minutes to kill:

None of what you say explains how you justify the stupid assumption that we need a monopoly of law enforcement in order to enforce the law.

Another assumption is in thinking that people are "evil" but somehow the politicians and the bureaucrats are somehow "good" and are what maintain law and order. (Maybe you think of yourself as evil. But in any case that is irrelevant.)

The "60's hippies" comment sounds like a Faux Noise pundit!

"What EXACTLY prevents me from taking everything someone has, by force? Private security? If you can afford it? If you can't?"

Go ahead, try it. And I can afford it. If you can't, then you should maybe look into that and your own finances instead of ranting about libertarians. Seems like a better strategy.

Do you actually think police services now currently "free?" Even if you happen to be a nonproductive tax consumer, you are still paying for it in other ways.

Competing private security or insurance would be cheaper and more efficient than the police force, since it would not be the monopoly we have now. And there are also those willing and able to defend themselves on top of that.

"All of Europe was effectively ungoverned when Rome fell."

Learn your history; there was never a time where all of Europe was "effectively ungoverned" when Rome fell.

"3. The appropriate information will be available to make rational decisions."

Obviously you're making the erroneous assumption that individuals don't have the info needed to make their own decisions and yet government/central planners somehow do. This is, in fact, the opposite of what Hayek demonstrated (not to mention what common sense indicates). (Maybe you feel incompetent, but that's another issue.)

Bemoaning the end of the Roman empire is like bemoaning the end of the Nazi regime; with its constant wars, the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple (an earlier holocaust), its intolerances, etc. Any problems with the "dark ages" (a label that historians are increasingly abandoning as it is glaringly inaccurate) reveal what happens when a poorly run state collapses due to war and bad economics. A lesson on where we are heading, whatever you might think. Good luck to you.

Edit: "You really act as though government is the root of all evil."
Which of my actions do you mean? Posting my thoughts? Are you the thought police?