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

Dante's Inferno Test

Posted 2 May 2003, 1.49 am by marilee

Which Level of Hell do you belong in?

Possibly Impossible

Posted 26 April 2003, 9.08 pm by The Green Mamba

Let us explore the relevancy of CAN and CAN'T ...

How many times in one day do you not here a sentence beginning with, "I can't" or even better, "But, I can't ...
I tell you not a day goes by without me hearing it at least once ...

Strange, isn't it how we can weave words around things that do not exist at all, for truly there is no such a thing.
CAN'T only bears relevancy in any sentence if it used in conjunction with YET. Example ... I can't fly ... Bullshit, you can't ... Correction ... I can't fly, yet.

Now there are much more extreme circumstances to which the irrelevance of can't can be applied, just as the phrase, I can't is used in a more casual manner by the average Joe or Jane. More than often this phrase is used by
the individual to express his or her unwillingness to even make an attempt at accomplishing something. Instead of pausing, thinking and then saying, Fuck you, I won't do it, all we ever get to a challenging request like,
"Can you hold your breath for 5 hours?" is, "NO, I CAN'T" ...

Which brings me to the CAN (No, not the soft fleshy mound, that usually comes in plural) part of things ... If I refer to my own question above, you will see that I in my ignorance was provoking an irrelevant response in the first place. CAN YOU HOLD ... Instead I should have rather asked ... Will you or Try to ... And maybe I would have received the desired response ...

We should really think more about how we ask questions and in the same breath (5 hours if you want to) formulate our responses to questions such as CAN YOU in a manner which does not rule out any and all current and
future possibilities ... After all, the laws of nature are not carved in stone and like all laws exist as crossable boundaries ... The trick in avoiding such things are the same ... If you manage to avoid getting caught by either the laws of man or the laws of nature, there is no proof that you have overstepped your boundaries. A thief does not say, I can't steal that, simply because he is afraid of being caught. No, if you tell him that he can't, he will simply make an attempt at proving you wrong and in most cases will succeed ... Now I am not a supporter of thieves, but I
am simply trying to prove a point, by using an example of how, if the laws of man can be broken, so too can the laws of nature.

The only thing that prevents us from breaking these laws are our own pre-programmed disposition that the laws of nature can't be broken ... Which strange enough brings me back to my original argument ... CAN'T DOES NOT EXIST ... IF IT IS THINKABLE, IT IS ATTAINABLE ... IF IT IS ATTAINABLE, IT IS INEVITABLE. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can start exploring beyond the boundaries of our own imagination.


Posted 25 April 2003, 8.10 am by ostensibletruth

I'm in college, but I'm only sixteen, so I live with my mother. Although I am trying to get a job and move out. She has left for five days to Pheonix for vacation. My mother is very unrestrictive. She let's me stay at home alone and she lets me have people over and she pretty much just lets me do whatever I want, as long as I do some chores. My father puts absolutely no responsibility on me and gives me no freedom.

Tommorow I plan to have my girlfriend, Sarah, over. My mother is okay with this. My father called and told me he tells me to come over tommorow for the weekend to his house. (Or, actually, I should say my grandparents house. My father lives with his parents.) I explained that I had plans and what I was doing. He asked if Sarah's parents knew she was coming. They're Mormons, so of course they do not. He then asks for their phone number in order to prevent her from coming over. I tell him that my mother was okay with this and he tells me that he'll call my mother before calling her parents and if she's not okay with it he calls her parents and I must come over to his house tommorow. That should work out for me since my mom's okay with it.

My father takes control of my life. He says, "Tommorow you will come over to my house after school because I want you to." "Sarah will not come over tommorow because I don't want her to." The results of doing this? Next time I'm in a similar situation I will lie to him. I won't tell him what I'm doing and I'll make up some excuse for staying here. He doesn't actually keep me from doing anything, he just makes me have to do it behind his back.

My mother let's me control my life. This isn't to say that she doesn't care, she just knows the way to care effectively. Her method is to tell me what she thinks about my decisions and explain to me why she thinks I should or shouldn't do something. This enables me to be honest with her. It's not necassary for me to lie about what I'm doing in order to do it, so I don't. That's a good reason to do this obviously, but a lot of people would say it doesn't prevent me from doing these things. They are wrong.

Consider this example: For a few months after my first girlfriend dumped me I started drinking. I didn't do it often or very heavily, but it was, obviously, enough to worry my mother. She explained to me why I shouldn't be drinking, that it would only make things worse, etc. I don't need to go into the details. She could have locked up all the alcohol and kept me from drinking. But I probably would have just gone drinking with some idiots from school (high school at the time) and that could have been more harmful than just ignoring it altogether. But when it was explained to me and I was given good reasons, plus it showed, to me, that she cared more than if she had just locked it away. And I stopped drinking. That's the big part, it worked.

Fact or Fiction

Posted 24 April 2003, 7.43 pm by The Green Mamba

Consider this for a moment … everything we have been taught to date is based on assumptions, made from observations, expanded into theories and published as scientific facts. Our entire so called understanding of the Universe is based purely on what we perceive as a logical explanation for something we are in fact completely clueless about.

PROBLEM … Who’s logic?

There is absolutely no proof that the logic scientists apply to the translation of data gathered within the confines of our perception is at all relevant to whatever subject they are attempting to understand. Take for instance religion. Hundreds if not thousands of different religious organizations read the same scriptures from the same book, but each one has their own views. If you join one of these groups it’s purely because their spokesperson tends to be more convincing than the other one down the street.
Science is exactly the same. We tend to believe whoever has the ability to convince us that their interpretation of the events they have been observing is right compared to someone else who has a completely different view, but struggles to communicate it correctly.
I recently read an article on Black Holes. It starts of by blatantly admitting that there is to date no proof that black holes really exist, but then, just a few lines further they start rambling on as if everything is tried, tested and vacuum packed for freshness.
The rest of the article is very cleverly written as well, with just enough “we believe” and “just as would have been expected” to cover their asses if anybody should ever decide to question their theories. The whole article rests on what would happen if light were to enter the event horizon surrounding a black hole. This is pretty radical, in that they go as far as to say that by definition only a black hole can possess an event horizon. Says who? Shit, they’re even afraid to call it a black hole outright, instead referring to something called “black hole candidates” and then they have the balls to say what may or may not have an event horizon.
Anyway that theory already out the window lets look at the facts. This guy randomly studied about six hundred miles of printouts from a chart recorder that came off the Hubble telescope and found somewhere in the millions of dots and whatever, 0.2 seconds during which, according to him, light actually fell over the event horizon into the black hole … Not only that, but he also refers to how the light stretches before it disappears due to the distortion of space-time by the black hole’s intense gravity. Fuck yeah, lets break out the Champaign … This is conclusive proof that anybody can be a scientist as long as he can combine enough unproven theories in one paragraph. Seriously, everything he used to prove his initial theory was just more theories. Consider for a moment that if any of these theories are proven wrong, then his whole argument goes to shit.
The whole problem is that nobody actually bothers anymore to spend his or her times disproving what we have been told are the facts. We simply accept other people’s word because, at face value, they sound like they know what they are talking about, but in reality they know just as little as we do.

ATM Illiterates

Posted 22 April 2003, 8.43 pm by The Green Mamba

End of the month, 9AM on a Saturday morning…
Everybody’s excited because we all just got paid and were standing in the queue at the local Automatic Teller Machine, ready to raid our newly filled up accounts.
It’s already getting hot and the guy behind you is standing so fucking close, you can almost smell his breath. You move a little forward, hoping he’s stay where he is … No luck.
Finally, you reach the front of the queue, now more relieved that you’re almost out of there than excited over the idea of finally having some money in your wallet again … The fucking moron behind you still doesn’t have any regard for your personal space, but you know you only have to tolerate it for a few more minutes … Then lightning strikes …
The fucking piece of shit excuse for a modern member of the human race who busy at the ATM in front of you gets lost. He tries to stick his piece of shit plastic card from some obscure bank you’ve never even heard of before into the fucking slot, upside down and he can’t figure out why the hell it doesn’t want to go in. Looks at the card … looks at the machine … looks at the card … tries again … looks at the card … and the fucking asshole behind you is still breathing in your neck.
Finally, dickhead at the ATM figures out that the only problem with his fucking card is his stupidity and finally gets things going.
Now comes the really tricky part … entering your PIN. Despite the fact that the keypad is almost exactly the same as any push button telephone this idiot takes another flipping minute just to punch in the code. This could be due to the fact that he’d apparently forgotten his friggin glasses and has to virtually press his face against either the keypad or the screen just to see what the fuck he’s doing or supposed to do. Aside from this he is having further difficulty in understanding that the keys are touch sensitive, using maximum force all the way.
This goes on for about ten minutes, and he eventually has his fucking money. Please note that these dumb fucks normally draw the minimum amount and will attempt the same procedure in the same painful fucking slow motion manner the following day …
He then spends another two minutes in front of the ATM counting the money, folding the slip and tucking it neatly in his wallet, before he finally waddles of to buy a box of matches at the nearest tuck shop.
At last you get away from the neck breathing freak behind you and approach the ATM with newfound vigor … armed with your trusty piece of plastic, you aim for the slot … You try to insert your card, but for some mysterious reason the fucking thing won’t go down … You check the card … Try again … no luck … glance at the screen and then lightning strikes … OFFLINE.

An interesting interpretation of Star Wars

Posted 21 April 2003, 9.29 am by Alexander

Just to prove people see more than one meaning in any piece of popular culture: Click Here.


Posted 16 April 2003, 8.27 pm by The Green Mamba

Think about it for a while. Think about objective reason means and then try and find a practical example. It shouldn’t take very long to find many countless of examples of people in professions ranging from journalists to your manager grading your performance over the last year according to a seemingly objective questionnaire. Now mimic what one of those people do and apply it to something similar and you will soon discover that no matter how hard you try, you simply can’t remain entirely objective.
Why is that … why is it that somehow we always end up stamping our own psychological signature onto everything we do?
Simple … we are not machines. Machines are designed to perform a specific task without any external or internal variables governing its actions whereas humans are continually influenced by a countless number of variables. Our mood at the time of performing a specific task … our predisposed opinion towards the person or the task based on the information and emotions that are stored in memory (first impressions so to speak).
Ultimately the results of any task performed, designed or interpreted by humans can not be objective and since machines can not think for themselves yet, objective reason is nothing but a myth to mask our own opinions.
Some people tend to think of themselves (and the human race) as rational beings … who have the ability to rationalize their thoughts and their actions in accordance with a specific set of laws as determined by nature and proven by science.
History however suggests that humans are everything but rational. We act in accordance to our own personal set of rules (morals) and enforce these with passion upon anybody whose morals contradict our own. When we’re in a good mood for whatever reason we tend to apply that to all our decisions for that day … things that would normally invoke anger of even violence would suddenly go by unnoticed or with slight regards. And when our day starts off on a bad note … the opposite becomes true.

This is even evident in complex mathematical equations. Mathematics is supposed to be the most rational method of thinking since it is supposed to have only one correct answer. 1 plus 1 equals 2 or 1 x 1 equals 1 etc. With this in mind I once asked my Maths teacher if 1 x 1 could ever equal anything other than 1? To my surprise he said yes and continued to prove it through an elaborate mathematical equation covering the entire black board. I then realized that the only reason he was able to do so was because he wasn’t applying common reason to the equation.
Now, when looking at more complex equations I soon discovered that there is more than one way to solve a problem. The reason for this is that different people look at things from different angles. Whereas I might start dissecting the problem from what appears to be the most rational starting point, someone else would tackle it from a completely different angle, thinking that his or her approach makes more sense. Should we arrive at different answers (which is quite possible) without either of us having made a mistake along the way, then how do you determine the correct answer? Simple … you cant, because neither of us nor any third party mathematician is capable of objective reason. Sure, we could punch it into a computer and see what it spits out … but even then the solution to the problem will be based on the method of calculation that was coded into the program … by an irrational, subjective human being.
Therefore, due to the lack of objectivity in the human blue print, rational thinking becomes somewhat obscured and even though at times our ideas may seem perfectly rational to ourselves and to others we continually find ourselves in situations where we feel like hitting our heads against a brick wall.
We like to think of ourselves as rational beings and subsequently of society as being rational … but in truth everything we are and everything we struggle so foolishly to maintain is not based on reason at all … but rather our personal beliefs. Human consciousness … our ability to look at things differently than any other species on the planet is not the end result of thinking rationally. If that had been true then any of the millions of other, older species could have out-evolved us at any time during pre-history … because instinct is a much more rational way of thinking than anything the human mind can conjure. If you’re hungry, you eat … tired, you sleep … horny, you fuck. Unfortunately this is also the reason for the many flaws in our society. Instead of building rationally, we have built emotionally … sometimes angry … sometimes happy … sometimes for the better … more often than not, for the worse.

Your eyes, ears and mouth

Posted 14 April 2003, 3.24 am by Winter

To begin with, an argument against the senses:

Anyone who has witnessed an optical illusion or seen a piece of trompe l’oeil cannot trust their senses. Fooled once, and recognized as fooled, the eyes become potential conveyers of false information; they must be regarded with the same degree of suspect as a habitual liar. The same goes for the other senses, having burped and tasted food not eaten for decades or heard a noise whose source could not be present (feel free to drop acid if these effects have never been witnessed but you desire them to be). At the very least, the eyes will bring about the down fall of the others, if you cannot believe what you see wholeheartedly, you cannot know that what you hear is caused by something there. (on a side note, Descartes can get fucked with his ‘clearly and distinctly’ bullshit)

This seems to be an unquestionable point to me, though I would love to hear any argument against it as it would likely keep me from weeping myself to sleep every third or fourth night.

A contradiction is present here in that once a distrust of the senses is established upon the evidence of memory, that evidence becomes untenable, as does any knowledge of the argument against the senses. This does not seem like a good reason to abandon the form of the argument, as this paradox will always crop up and the alternative is to ignore the issue like it were Arabs in front of an Israeli bulldozer. That any damage done to the senses is also done to memory must be kept in mind, the paradox must be allowed to exist as a thing to be studied, though it destroys our world.

Consequences (besides the madness of it all):

Expressing and acting become a matter of hope, not belief. Belief is impossible. Anything that is learned cannot be taken as wholly true, only as one possibility that happened to be presented. The self is the only thing that can be said to exist with certainty. Depression and drunkenness become a way of life (drunkenness as self-delusion, not the imbibing of liquor… though that of course works as well). The self becomes something that must be medicated against. Death, though uncertain, remains one of the few possibilities that seem to offer any hope of permanent escape. The desire to become the anti-christ, to seek freedom in meaninglessness, becomes ever-present. The possibility of an end itself becomes meaningless, it is no long sought. The self closes its doors.


Possibility must be held onto, as even the possibility of an outside world can be seen as better than nothingness (I looked into the void and nothing looked back, for I was nothing at last). Because the self is known to exist, the aesthetic sense may be promoted above a faulty rationality, the world is datum that must be sorted. The real may not exist, but the false and experienced do. Selfishness develops. The world is inconsequential shit which must either be devoured for the benefit of continued existence and the vain hope that the world is at least partially inhabited or be avoided as something that is worthless.

Remaining Question:

Does it matter what is done? Even if there is an exterior, does the self matter? Can trying ever be worth it if time is endless and destruction inevitable (these are the products of our ‘real world’ so far)?

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: 2 Guests: 1614

Art Collection Minimize
Click for larger image

In 2018 I started painting again. This was one of a series of acrylic sketches I did to relearn techniques and revisit my skills from art college.

Chat Minimize

Props to Green Mamba for bringing the weirdness


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!


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 0.0330 seconds