No matter how many years have passed, i've never understood what is the point of getting rid of all mind altering substances in your life? I understand that there re some that don't like it but why do they have to insist that their way is the only one? Everything in moderation of course, not suggesting we should be "loaded" 24/7. I feel that it's religious reasons that makes our society say "sobriety is a virtue" and everything else is a sin. I hear those monks do make great beer thou

I'd be curious what some of the jazz legends, like Davis, Monk, Coltrane, Parker.. would think of this guy. Would they think he's without a real talent? Or would they think he's got soul?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Thelonius Monk: Straight, No Chaser [full film]. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I will get to what is wrong with strongly denouncing Islam in a second....

As for the article, I hadn't actually read the whole thing but rather had heard coverage about it along with an article on Al Jazeera. Specifically, I take issue with Harris and his stance on the 'war on terror' (and aren't you essentially advocating for religious profiling by condemning Islam and its practitioners? Or is it rather that you identify it as a threat but wish to see no action taken?) I also have problems with Hitchens and his enthusiasm for the invasion of Iraq.

As for the quote I posted, after re-reading it, I think that I saw something that wasn't there. I believe that trying to prove that one religion is more evil than another is pointless. Reading history books, which oddly I have done, will not disprove that belief but rather reinforce it as the tragedy of all religions would be laid bare.

Finally, I would gladly take up your 'snidely', non-issued challenge. As a matter of fact, I've already done it. I lived in Indonesia for a year both in Muslim dominated areas and tribal, animist Christian dominated areas. While I am by no means an atheist activist, I nonetheless lived openly as an atheist and honestly answered the question of my religion (I have none) when it was asked of me. Nothing happened to me. Furthermore, I currently live on the Thai-Burma border in a Buddhist dominated country and do not hide my lack of belief when asked about it.

And that is where I come back to the problem of denouncing Islam. Just last month there were pogroms against Muslims by Buddhists in Burma (a smaller conflict than that which occurred last year against the Rohingya in Rakhine state). The proximate cause of this pogrom was a Muslim jeweler refusing to pay for damaged jewelry of a Buddhist woman. But more generally, it is a result of a campaign of extremist Buddhist monks issuing edicts about the evils of Islam and the dangers it represents to Burmese culture. Unequivocally condemning an entire religion invariably leads to this type of violence, and therein lies my concern.

There's a follow up clip on the tubes. The monks ate it and said they liked it. Still, I'd like to know how he messed up according to the chef. The ingredient list seemed right.

Way to leave the viewer hangin' ... will the Monks send it back?

Obviously, the brain is being tricked into something. What that is, is yes an astounding mystery. See, as I said before there is only one way to test your theory is to invest ten minutes and find out. But, I am sure you would want to pussy foot around with 10mg for a long while until you got to the 40mg, "breakthrough" dose. Which, no one is ever prepared for.

It is not like any other drug. Two seconds in and the person is in a trance. The first time I did it, I really was not expecting what it felt like to go into trance as your mind slips through some sort of portal into the unknown. Seeing pure energy, geometry, with eyes closed. I remember before I did it, I was interested in many aspects of it, seven foot tall black entities were never something I thought about or fantasized about. It is not some fear of mine. I was interested in seeing the afterlife.... and on the way maybe I would see that all the geometric mayan/eastern mandala stuff was bullshit. I wanted to discount the experience as well. But, I could not. And in fact I can see where the influence comes from even if the patterns one sees on this are far more intricate beyond the human imagination. Surely, this is a state the yogi, the buddhist, hindu monks spend their lives trying to get to.

I have given this to close friends. Afterwards, I give it some time and eventually I ask do you think that came from your imagination? And no one believes it does. A lot of what they saw came from absolutely no pop culture references. It came from nothing except knowing very little about it and trusting that I was not going to pop them to the other side of the universe. I still do not know where you are getting your assumptions from? No one knows of anything for sure. We hardly know anything about anything. Repeat that in your head.

I believe in Science first and foremost. But, whatever this is challenges just about all preconceived notions we have of what we actually are to the core. And even if it all proves to be just a trip. It would still challenge the preconceived notions we have of what we actually are.

Thanks for the pro mote, Mr Monkey Monk.

Tis appreciated.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

Is he breaking that cows neck at 2:16? If so, that is fucked up.


Nah, he's just subduing her..It would take a helluva wrench to break that cow's neck, even if that monk was trying to! That cow's head is being held down on the ground and she's using massive force against him to try and get back up. If you perfect this practice demonstrated like this guy has then you are ready to hold a 350lb warrior to the ground with yer frikkin' elbow while yer other powerful arm is free to roam the soft tissue!!

Where do Shaolin monks sleep?

In Shaolin bunks, of course! (@4:00)

Badumbum-pschhh.

>> ^jmzero:

As for jmzero... I dont think hes even played it.

Well, uh, you're wrong. I've played about an hour, which was a half hour more than I needed to see this wasn't the game for me. I played the first game really quite a lot.
There are many things you can say about GW2, both good and bad, but "slightly different flavor of WoW" isnt one of them.

I don't think YOU'VE played it. Ha! See how annoying that is?
Anyways, it's a hell of a lot more like WoW than Guild Wars 1, though I suppose MMO connoisseurs probably see all sorts of distinguishing characteristics. I played through the storyline of Guild Wars 1 and only played with other people once or twice (using the AI mercenary things as required). In Guild Wars, I didn't even get to fight the "boss" thing at the end of the tutorial - someone killed it before I got close. That's not the same kind of game.
And they've futzed with the multi-player (which to me was the actual game). I can't just pick the skills I want. I can't just jump into a reasonably balanced (and levelled) PvP character (or, if I can, they didn't present that option very well). In the first game, I made a PvP monk with a bunch of heals, and was doing multiplayer (and having fun) immediately - like, within 10 minutes of installing the game. I have no idea how far off the horizon that is in Guild Wars II, but even when it comes I'm quite sure I don't want to play it. It plays completely different - far more action-RPG focus instead of the old focus on skill-selection and tactics. If I want an action-y game, I'll play a game style that supports that - like DotA.
Guild Wars 1 was a really appealing game for me. Guild Wars II is nothing of the sort - and to me it goes in the same trash-heap as every other "kill 10 rats", "grind equipment and levels" MMO that came before it.
Oh, but yeah, I didn't realize that it's set in the same painfully, painfully generic fantasy universe (I really didn't). Thanks for straightening me out on that.


1. Basing any game on an hours play is stupid.
2. You talk about how you loved GW1s story, yet you ignored the story in GW2 which said wait for the NPC.... this was there so you didnt miss out on killing the boss.... perhaps you should pay attention next time.
3. In GW1 most people picked the same 3 or so skills for weapons every time, AN simply locked the skills in place to make sure people who didnt understand wouldnt be caught out with a build which was useless. All the other skills can be picked by the player, tho again with more limitations. The GW1 system was powerful, but impossible to balance. The new system is able to be managed by AN, but it sactually more indepth than it seems, tho it is simpler.
4. You can jump into pvp right away actually. Just make a charater (such as a guardian) and goto the pvp lobby. Done, lvl 80 with access to all items, skills and access to the jump in, and tournament play. Again, if you'd bothered to play the game you would have known this. All this information was in the manuel linked right from the launcher.
5. You dont grind equipment and levels. You'll get both by doing whatever you want, be it spvp, wvw, story content or jump roaming around.

Its not perfect, but dear lord play it first to find out for yourself.

As for jmzero... I dont think hes even played it.



Well, uh, you're wrong. I've played about an hour, which was a half hour more than I needed to see this wasn't the game for me. I played the first game really quite a lot.

There are many things you can say about GW2, both good and bad, but "slightly different flavor of WoW" isnt one of them.



I don't think YOU'VE played it. Ha! See how annoying that is?

Anyways, it's a hell of a lot more like WoW than Guild Wars 1, though I suppose MMO connoisseurs probably see all sorts of distinguishing characteristics. I played through the storyline of Guild Wars 1 and only played with other people once or twice (using the AI mercenary things as required). In Guild Wars, I didn't even get to fight the "boss" thing at the end of the tutorial - someone killed it before I got close. That's not the same kind of game.

And they've futzed with the multi-player (which to me was the actual game). I can't just pick the skills I want. I can't just jump into a reasonably balanced (and levelled) PvP character (or, if I can, they didn't present that option very well). In the first game, I made a PvP monk with a bunch of heals, and was doing multiplayer (and having fun) immediately - like, within 10 minutes of installing the game. I have no idea how far off the horizon that is in Guild Wars II, but even when it comes I'm quite sure I don't want to play it. It plays completely different - far more action-RPG focus instead of the old focus on skill-selection and tactics. If I want an action-y game, I'll play a game style that supports that - like DotA.

Guild Wars 1 was a really appealing game for me. Guild Wars II is nothing of the sort - and to me it goes in the same trash-heap as every other "kill 10 rats", "grind equipment and levels" MMO that came before it.

Oh, but yeah, I didn't realize that it's set in the same painfully, painfully generic fantasy universe (I really didn't). Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ella, fitzgerald, awesomeness, thelonious monk, 1961, oscar peterson' to 'Ella Fitzgerald, awesomeness, thelonious monk, 1961, oscar peterson' - edited by jonny

@shinyblurry

There's a question that causes debate among many believers, and that is the age old question... Are Jesus and God the same? Well, it does say that "for God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son", so naturally you would think the answer is a simple no.

But as nearly ever other aspect of Christianity goes, it's not that simple. For some reason Christians think Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and so on. Yet, they cannot back up this belief with anything from the Bible. There are so many things one can use to show that Jesus was not God, but none to the contrary.

Of course one of the first things you come across would be the concept of an infinite God in a finite body. I understand the argument of God being non-physical, and thus size would not be an issue. But what about other human limitations shown by Jesus. Primarily dying. Why would God become a person, just to die, therefore destroying any beliefs that this guy was God? Well, at least it should have destroyed beliefs. The only reasonable thing would be to survive death and live forever on earth to prove that you are God. Hell, if there was a 2000 year old man who could document it and that had public records of... I'd believe in God.

The main thing is that Jesus never called himself God, never insinuated he was God. He mostly referred to himself as Son of Man. Now people often cite various biblical verses with sayings like "I and the father are one" and that you can't get to the father without Jesus. But regardless of how much those who would like to believe it as being Jesus saying he is God close their eyes and wish. It will never be an admittance of being God.

Many of gurus, and well, anyone who has found the zone have become one with something. Be it a monk trying to be one with the universe, or Wayne Gretzky being one with his hockey stick. It's a common saying of something being so familiar to you that it's nearly a part of you. Jesus was only saying that he knows God so well, that God has become a part of him. Now for some on topic humor. What did the Guru say to the pizza man? Make me one with everything.

Now how do people think that because Jesus said that the only way to get to the father is through him, that he said he was God? Who knows? All he was saying was that he was the guide to God, follow him and you will see God. It's like that Heavens Gate guy said that he was the way to get to the Hale Bop comet, he wasn't saying that he was the Hale Bop comet.

My bad on D1 dungeons.

There will always be cookie-cutter builds. And besides, when you're talking about 'the' build, you're talking about the ideal items to have, the vast majority of people will never get there. Meanwhile, the options for 'best with what you have' varied heaps. I played D3 through with a Monk, and the entire time, the only stats that felt worthwhile chasing were damage, dexterity and vitality.

I'm not saying it didn't have dark elements, but vast portions of the story, dialogue and tone, particularly after Act 1 (which I thought was best part of the game), where juvenile and completely off for a Diablo game. I mean for christ sake, the game delved into damsel in distress territory multiple times. Anyway posted this elsewhere, going to just copy paste:

1. Story tone is horribly off for a Diablo game. Act 1, the tone is almost that right mix of dark, macabre & grim horror albeit with overly colourful graphics. Then, in Act 2 and especially 3/4 the game becomes flat out goofy. It's almost like different studios designed the two parts. Regardless, it's obvious the whole gothic, cheesy but serious tone of previously Diablo games has been thoroughly ditched.

It becomes obvious there is a reason that most of the prime evils were mostly mute & why your characters was kept to making sarcastic remarks and one liners in D2. Diablo beretting you with grating "if it wasn't for your meddling kids" dialogue completely ruins the game's tone. Overall the mix of occasional ultra-violence and the overt colourfulness and childish NPC banter gives it an almost surreal and contradictory theme. As if a design house was of two minds, fighting over dominance over the franchise's feel.

There was just no need to muck with what was not broken to the point that it's hard for me to NOT imagine Activision sitting behind the developers dictating them how well the WoW tone sits with target demographics. There is nothing wrong with WoW existing in its own space with it's own unique identity. There's a problem with creative variety between Blizzard games becoming non-existent because they've caught on to what sells best and decided to stick to that.

As for launch issues, I didn't play D2 at launch, but that's not what really bugs me. It is abundantly obvious though that foisting online-only is part of the reason they're having so many launch issues.

Here's my full bitch session - http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149543659

>> ^mentality:

>> ^RedSky:
@mentality
D2 felt like a huge leap on D1. Randomized dungeons, huge increase in class and especially item variety, introduction of a vast swathe of new environments. In comparison critically looking at D3, while it does have an expanded skills system, at the end of a prodigious 11 year development cycle, D3 has far less item variety at launch, and arguably simplified gameplay mechanics on a number of levels.
Personally, I happen to also think the story is a let down, the tone of the game has been inappropriately been made cartoonish (art design non-withstanding).

D1 had randomized dungeons. Item variety in D2 was very limited because there often was one set of unique item that was 'THE' item for a specific build. The expanded environments in D2 were also very cartoony compared to the dungeons of D1, and calling D3 cartoonish with levels like the Halls of Agony is outright ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that the grass is always greener, and we all look at the past with rose colored glasses. History repeats itself, but it seems like few people remember all the problems, controversy and bitching surrounding Diablo 2's launch.