Sitenews Minimize
  • 30/12/18
    Fun fact - AKPCEP has a Google Page Speed score of 100/100
  • 26/12/18
    You wonder how any of this worked in the first place.
  • 13/03/09
    Still here! Please visit the forums and join in the discussions. If you have any questions or comments please contact Alexander.
Link Button Minimize
link to

Use this to link

Valid XHTML 1.0
Valid CSS

Random Thoughts on the Subject of Untruth and Pompousness

Posted 3 September 2004, 11.00 pm by Lilith

Everyone wants to be someone important, someone of consequence, right? For the most part--and with some rather rare psychologically unusual exceptions, everyone wants to be "somebody" as opposed to just nobody that no one knows or cares about.

On the internet, where there is a (rather transparent, when examined carefully) seeming of anonymity and possibiliy to pretend a variety of things that one may or may not be in real life--in other words, to lie. It is a seeming and not a reality because the anonymity of the internet is a rather relative thing, while one's reputation on the net is near a constant, at least as long as you stay in your habitual circles. People have long memories, and longer on the net, because of easy accessibility of archives on most sites.

There are two routes around that--one is to actually be that transparent and not lie about things, and another is to actually keep oneself anonymous--and then you can pretend to be whatever, at least to an extent that is believable and likely (contrary to the popular belief, people aren't much more stupid on the net than they are in real life). I will discuss lies on the internet another time--currently, a related issue is on my mind, for it is the type of personality that is prone to attempt the latter path (regardless of how anonymous they actually manage to be) that tends to irritate me to no end, as they are almost alsways true nobodies in real life, and pretend to be anything and everything on the net, positively bristling with self-importance and net status (if they are able to achieve it to any extent).

How does one, then, achieve internet importance, even in small terms? I speak here in generalities (though will try to avoid generalizations), and in small terms, because there are many more things on the net than I can or have time to describe in details. There is such a thing as internet power status, very localized and limited, of course--being a moderator, irc Op on a popular channel, or administrator. To be an admin (for the purposes of status as oposed to purposes of adminning one's web site), one must actually create something that attracts a population, like a forum or a blog site--you pick. The positions of Op and moderator are, however, generally acquired things. They are consequently less powerful than the administrator position, and therefore are far more of an accessible (being that becoming an admin of anything worthwhile is rather difficult) status statement on the internet--"look, someone who is an admin thinks I am worthy of being a moderator for his site/forum/channel/whatever!".

There are then also online organizations that have command structures one can endeavor to become a part of, and then the command has a limited to the net, but very real within its limits, power over the membership of their organization and ability to dispence justice within those bounds.

I by no means would claim that all entities in positions of limited power over their little corners of the internet are there for the buttering of their own egos and power-trips, by no means, that isn't so. All I am pointing out is that to those who would want to act in a pompous man-o-power self-important manner, those positions are the naturally sought-after item.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely--should a person of those questionable qualities end up in a position of power, the misuse of it is almost a certain constant in this psychological equation. Sooner or later, they will put others down just because they can, and the exercise of that power makes them feel more important and significant in their own eyes.

To wrap up the entry, I am just trying to classify the breed for study, making a few notes. This was inspired by encountering one of those pompous online bureaucrats today in my net sphere, and I will now take steps to never come into his possible sphere of power again. This person had not touched me directly in such a way as to provoke me, but I resent the possibility of finding myself being talked to as an underling by someone who is a likely nobody in real life, and not my employer, either.

The beauty of the net is that if you don't like it somewhere on the net (where you are nominally welcome), it's your choice whether to remain there. People in real life and on the net will get away with precisely as much as you let them get away with.

I prefer not to let people get away with much.


Posted 28 August 2004, 1.56 am by Villager

Of all contemporary issues that divide opinion, the issue of abortion is one of the most divisive. The unspoken aggregate seems to be that, if indeed women do have a 'right to choose', they may only do so up to a particular stage of pregnancy, on the premise that there is a particular point where the foetus becomes a human being, after which 'birth control' becomes 'first degree murder'.
Those who defend a woman's right to abortion do so on the basis that ones' physical rights include the right to abort a pregnancy. This requires a dehumanisation of the unborn child; even the most ardent pro-choice advocate would be hard pressed to deny the humanity and right to life once a child is parted from its mother. So a cut-off point is required, a stage of development where the foetus suddenly 'becomes' human and gains the rights the rest of us enjoy. This distinction is disingenuous, granting the unborn child protection only if they have reached a stage where they can be deemed to 'experience'. The real point of concern is that, at whatever stage of pregnancy, what a mother carries inside her will become a human child if not killed off. Any attempt to circumvent this truth is a degradation of life itself, an attempt to impose arbitrary worth upon particular stages of foetal development for the sake of the mother's self-interest. Reduce the issue to its fundamentals and you have two options: allow the pregnancy to result in the natural consequence, a human being like you and I, or kill it.
To those for whom a child would be 'inconvenient', tough. Your actions have consequences; it is not enough to deprive another of life simply for the sake of convenience. To those who become pregnant as a result of rape or find themselves in a highly difficult social/financial situation (for example, a child resulting from a socially unacceptable miscegenational relationship) I have great sympathy and understand the terrible choice that such individuals face. But it doesn’t change the fundamental issue; to bear a child conceived in rape or in a social setting that could rip a family apart, or into poverty, would indeed be difficult, but does not compare to the ‘choice’ of killing,
sorry, murdering, an innocent human.
Whether the reason for abortion is trivial or terribly serious, the choice remains a highly selfish one. This is of course negated if you don’t value a human’s life on the grounds that it hasn’t experienced anything yet. If you don’t, and advocate abortion, I hope no child is ever subjected to your parenthood.
Even if you agree you might ask why such choices can’t be left to the individual to decide, why we can’t respect each other’s differing values. The answer is the same reason we don’t allow murderers to kill at will simply because they don’t see it as being particularly wrong. The argument that a woman has a right to abortion because the pregnancy is occurring in her body simply isn’t valid. What is happening to a pregnant woman is of distinctly less importance than what is happening to the developing child. If we seriously claim any moral integrity as a society then abortion should be reviled no less
than the ordinary murder of born humans, and that necessarily entails prohibition. It is our communal duty to protect the helpless and the innocent from those who would do them harm. Unborn children cannot be exempted.
To legalise abortion is to give one individual the right to intentionally deny life to another unnecessarily. In the adult world, that’s called murder. However, as with adult-adult relations, there are exceptions. If I am threatened with murder by another, I may use reasonable force to defend myself, and if that necessitates the death of the attacker, it is of no moral detriment to me. If this principle of human rights is applied to abortion, a mother whose life is endangered by pregnancy may end the child’s life to protect her own.
The life of the mother takes priority over that of the unborn child. Her
convenience and happiness however, most certainly do not.


Posted 27 August 2004, 4.50 am by Villager

I used to be something of a slave to my emotions. It might have been the throes of love, the vacant agonies of loss, the bitter thrall of hate or the disabling woes of despair. Whichever, they each tended to dominate my thoughts and dreams, my motives and actions. Beautiful, wonderful highs, bitter, crushing lows. I was happy with that, broadly – the lows got to me but I felt alive, human. The highs were worth the lows. Something changed.
For a long time, what I would call ‘charged’ emotions (that is, recognizably positive or negative ones) were simply replaced with an intense nothingness; not a particular positive or negative, just empty, and sad. Apathetic In recent times, even this has faded. Where once I would have sat and stared with tragic, narcissistic loneliness, I can now only gaze and try to recall such feeling. Any feeling. In my efforts to understand myself I seem to have become something else.
I cannot recall a recent time where I felt even mild hatred, anger, love, joy, or even that staple of disillusion, apathy. Just nothing. I’m a person without feeling, and I have no idea why. I’m not particularly upset about it, except perhaps in a vague, abstract way. I’m now largely driven by curiosity, when it strikes. Apart from that I think I’ve become a passive mill, turning experience and information into thoughts and ideas that feel like somebody else’s.
Some might consider this a victory of sorts, a stumbling into command of my mind, free of the liability of emotion. But I cannot think of it as such. I lack entirely motivation, cares, impulse, even desire. It would be something of an inconvenience to indulge in pleasures of the flesh, and hardly worth it. I don’t feel human anymore. My relationships are fickle, my interactions with others trivial and forced. I have no personality, only dull, recited responses to the various stimuli. Perhaps this is indeed a step towards something better, but I cannot fathom what. It’s as though I’ve become amputated from the orbit of human experience, or rather, that I’ve simply drifted away.
So what to do? I have no real inclination towards anything, I just exist, eating, sleeping, and going about daily life. Is this what it feels like to be ‘grown up’? Why didn’t anyone tell me? I‘m concerned, I think, because I’ve always relied upon my feelings and emotions as a kind of bizarre compass for life. I realize this is unlikely to be particularly interesting to any of you, ‘Oh great. After years of whining about his emotions, Villager’s whining about not having anything to whine about’ and in truth my prime motive in posting is to solicit responses from anyone who can relate. Been there? Still there? What’s happening to me, people?!

justify my love

Posted 21 August 2004, 5.01 pm by darkstrEam

I think it's fair to say I spend too much money on music, even if most of what I buy is a "bargain". Most of the albums I bought today were only a fiver but there was holy grail of a CD...that I spend twenty quid on.
Of course I can balance this out in my head, in that everything else was well below a resasonable price for a quality original album, but still...twenty quid is twenty quid.
So what was this uber important and yet very expensive album?
Why, it was the collected early works of Art Of Noise, remastered and mixed into 5:1 surround sound. *silence* *tumbleweed* *cough* *etc*

Music matters to me, some music more than others. Art of Noise were electronic music I was into before I realised how much I loved electronic music. I still have a battered and much-played copy of Close (To The Edit) on 7 inch vinyl from 1984. Twenty years ago - only nine years old, one of the first pieces of music I'd ever bought (although I also bought "Star Trekkin" and the Ghostbusters theme around the same time).
Back then I loved it because I'd never heard anything like it and it spoke to me. Now I see it a little differently (an experimental yet also hypnotic and mocking sonic rant on the nature of electronic pop music, not entirely dissimilar yet opposite to KLF's chart-milking reinvention philosophy) and yet I still love it and know there's nothing quite like it.
Some things are important for more reasons than we can understand, and sometimes you can't explain why what matters to you does - it just does.

Paedophile Appreciation

Posted 19 August 2004, 4.57 pm by Anton

[Editor's Note: Remember these articles are purely the opinion of the individual poster and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of]

How many of you think paedophiles are sick and the scum of the earth? I'm guessing a fair few. That's quite a foolish thing to think. Paedophiles can be normal people too, they don't have to touch children. Paedophilia is as wrong as homosexuality, bestiality, scat whatever. Its nothing but a sexual preference. I'm sure not every paedophile touches children, some of them most realise that it is wrong to do such a thing because a child hasn't developed sufficient mental faculties to know what its actually doing. These are the paedophiles I have no problem with, think of the fucking mental torment they must go through being sexually attracted to children. I bet its hell.

Nobody chooses to be a paedophile, you don't wake up one morning and think "I know, I think I'm going to fuck children so I can hear their pelvis snap" just like you don't wake up think "I'm going to fuck people of my own gender from now on." I don't know what causes it be it genetic or because of something that happened to you in your life but I can safely assume its not a choice. The man who just masturbates to the children's underwear section of a catalogue may have highly questionable sexual preferences but can you call him a sick freak? He knows he can't and shouldn't touch children but he has sexual desires. Should he condemn himself to a life of no sex and no masturbation? That's a lot to ask of someone who doesn't have the constitution of a monk.

Child porn is a different story, the people who make it are sick. The people who watch it however? Not really. So the kids underwear section doesn't do it for them anymore, its obvious they're going to go onto child porn. Of course there's the argument if nobody watched it then it wouldn't exist. That's true, but its cyclical, people will watch it as long as its there as well even if its just the maker knocking one out to it. So in essence its near impossible and even more improbable that we'll ever completely get rid of child porn so someone watching it isn't really adding to the problem really.

So how do I conclude? Paedophiles are people too. They can be good, bad or downright sick. Either way, next time you hear of someone caught with a child porn collection just look at it this way: At least they weren't caught with a basement full of decaying child corpses with holes where they aren't meant to be.


Posted 17 August 2004, 4.50 pm by shaggy

The world is controlled by blips and bites,
The ones and zeroes are following us.
We see them in the mirror.

This is controlled, we are controlled
And it is our liberation.
We have no choice, we cannot be otherwise,
And hammered down and shackled,
we are free.

Make me have no choice,
Hammer me down and set me free,
Tie me up and free me from bondage,
Give me no choice so I can have the freedom to smile.

Breaking the Habit

Posted 5 August 2004, 3.02 am by shaggy

I cannot control this, the system
Lost its lens, the prism with which
We have seen it all.

The habit has controlled us,
Made us who we are,
And polluted us until we gave it away.

Yet now we are left with a habit
With no way of ridding ourselves of the actions
Rolling and rolling with nothing to light

Perhaps it was the pollution that ruined us?

Me America, You World. Grr!

Posted 3 August 2004, 10.50 pm by Villager

The European perception of the USA is often unjust, assuming naiveté or reckless arrogance concerning foreign affairs. Having been here a while, I see it is rather more complicated than that.

I was seated outside a sleepy little café in a sleepy little town taking an occasional sip from my morning coffee when I was joined by a friendly local, an old man whose profession I have always admired; gardener and groundsman. We talked about ourselves, the weather, and about England, a country that not a few Americans seem to regard as still in the Nineteenth century (they are not entirely wrong, but that is a topic for another time). Inevitably, conversation drifted onto Global Terrorism and American Foreign Policy. Of those I have spoken to – and of course I can make no claim that their opinions are representative of anything more than themselves – there seems to be two problems, as I seem them, that distort and oppress the American understanding of contemporary conflict and the wider world. First and foremost, the media here is largely terrible. Exposure to television, radio and newspapers betrays an almost shockingly narrow perception and presentation of world events. My native BBC, while not always (or even regularly) living up to the ideals of impartiality and broad coverage, at least seems to have in view the goals it should strive to meet in Public Service Broadcasting.
Flicking through the national broadsheets and Washington’s local publications, one is struck by the lack of world news and analysis, and where it is to be found it pertains almost exclusively to the narrow, short-term American interest. There is a prime-time, right-wing (though ostensibly politically unaffiliated) political opinion show here with a substantial audience which provides its viewers with what amounts to a diatribe of self-interest, distrust of the world at large – even those who have staunchly supported American policies – obsessive paranoia and an utter unwillingness to consider that military and diplomatic force may not be the wisest means of serving the interest of America, her allies or the world at large. The 'liberal' equivalents differ only in their hatred of George W Bush, and such shows are not untypical.
Self interest and, in light of the aggression that this nation has suffered in recent times, reactionary distrust and militarism are perhaps to be expected. But it is very dangerous that these things pervade the media, and so the public mind, without being placed in a greater context. The American media is fixated upon the present and the immediate future. It is not concerned with historic precedent, nor willing to consider the long-term negative consequences of its brazen behavior. If it is to be hoped that the world’s sole superpower will mature and greet the world on equal terms, then the American media’s self-censorship and mindless preoccupation with the here-and-now represents an obstacle to world peace perhaps as great as any other. I speak of historic precedent, and by that I mean that the ‘War on Terror’ to date is, compared to the United States’ recent and distant wars, much less a threat to American lives and general prosperity than political discourse and the accompanying hysteria would have you believe. Yes, the terrorist attacks on American soil and American nationals and interests abroad do represent a significant development in America’s relationship with the world, but what it does not do is herald a new era where America must fight with all her military might or die. Bad as it may seem right now, it must be realized that it could get a lot worse.
The second problem, a sibling of the first, is that the American people themselves seem unconcerned at the journalistic lethargy of their media. Perhaps this is even a cause of the first problem, though inasmuch as a nation’s media and people reflect and shape each other, I hope not for it is much the harder to change. The consequence is that the world lies prone to a force that neither sees nor wants to see the world’s problems with any clarity, its focus sternly upon material self-improvement and preservation. So much depends upon American policy, from man’s perennial abuse of the environment to how many thousands of innocent lives will be claimed and how much destruction will be wrought, if this playground brawl between the forces of Western conservatism and those who would make Islam an excuse to take innocent lives is allowed to escalate and draw the wider world into a conflict that is as unnecessary as it is potentially dangerous.
The key to all of this lies in the pyramid of American political power. At the top, the President and a tight political and economic elite sit astride a two-party system that strangles and perverts the democratic process. If America is to save the world and itself from chaos, then it can only do so through the proper practice of the noble, democratic principles that it is presently attempting to foist upon Iraq. I believe that an accurate political reflection of the humanity within America would solve most of the problems that America faces, but that cannot happen until the people themselves demand that they be properly informed. America and the world need a second American Revolution, but the only Englishmen now are those who sit and ponder in cafes. This time, the enemy and obstacle to true American freedom lies not across an ocean, but within the borders of what the people here so tragically refer to as the
greatest nation on earth. The United States of America was founded on principles which none could justly fault. As the 228th Anniversary comes and goes amid deafening fanfare and celebration, the silent masses need to stand up and defend those principles, else for them and the world, things can and likely will get a whole lot worse.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Submissions Minimize

0 Articles awaiting authorisation

Users Online Minimize

Members: 4 Guests: 241

Art Collection Minimize
Click for larger image

They were done for an exhibition a couple of years ago . They asked for something to so with the summer. They are mixed media and oil paint on metal advertising boards - for ice cream.

Chat Minimize


80s candy bars were pretty good

only because i traded it for a candy bar in the 80's.

lol we all know you don't have a soul ghoti

my soul for some carbs...

But of course!

Yo ! Does this work ?


If you wish to help AKPCEP grow, please use PayPal.
RSS Newsfeed:
Articles posted are copyright the respective authors and may not express the views of All other content ©Alexander King 2001-2019. ver 4.0
This page was built in 0.0132 seconds