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

I am not who I thought I was

Posted 7 May 2002, 5.31 am by Berly

Ok. Ready? I got in my truck one morning. I dutifully checked behind me for victims before backing out of my spot. "Oh, how annoying" I thought. "Some kids have come by and opened my tailgate, and left it open. Little critters should be caged."

I get out and The tailgate has been STOLEN! Fucking stolen! They did a spectacular job though. They lifted it right off and didn't leave so much as a dust particle disturbed otherwise. Bastards.

$900 to replace, and an additional $35.00 for this wacky invention called a tail gate lock. Did you know that the tailgates of trucks are sold in approximately 5,000 pieces, all of which you have to purchase separately? Ok, I lied. I think it’s really only something like 7 pieces, but it feels like 5,000.

I felt awful calling the police and wasting their time with a police report, but the insurance gods required it. After sacrificing the police officer’s precious time, I was free to seek replacement of my stolen goods.

I’m given a 4 door Saturn to drive in the meantime. I feel like I’m riding around on the California freeways in a roller skate. And not a really cool in-line roller skate either. No, more like a vintage 1975, 4 metal wheel roller skate - with no rubber stopper on the front.

I’d like to say that I’ve learned something from this incident - aside from why tailgate locks were invented. I’d love to say I’ve learned to be more courteous to small cars sharing the road with me. That I’ve realized it could have been worse and that it’s really a minor inconvenience compared to situations other people find themselves in.

I have been robbed of two things. One is the obvious - the other, is what disturbs me more than the first. Years ago, when I lost my transportation to some unforeseen circumstance, I was happy to drive anything that would get me where I wanted/needed to be. This is not the case this time. I am actually bitter about being inconvenienced - to such a degree - that I don’t like myself. I don’t like the person I have become. What happened to me?

Jason X or Why You Should Not Waste Cash

Posted 6 May 2002, 11.38 pm by Jake

Psst. Hey. You want a modern recipe for mediocrity? Take a horribly overdone movie series, put in a dash of futuristically banal atmosphere, add a cookie-cutter slasher flick plot and a handful of horny college kids. And as Emeril Lagasse would say, "Bam!" Except in all honesty, it's more of a flat fart. Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It's Jason Voorhees. In space. w00t.

If I was asked to describe this movie in three words I would best summarize it as, "Shit, shit, shit." Now, don't get me wrong here. In spite of a few inspired kills, many people thought it blew. Lackluster dialogue frittered with cheap one liners (e.g. "He's screwed.") and women who resemble buxom infants with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome along with a dated character doesn't exactly hit the spot. I wanted this movie to be so good, but yet again my collective conscious recieved a hearty kick in the balls.

I'm glad I borrowed the bootleg from a friend, otherwise I'd sue the whole goddamned cast and crew for mental damage and psychosis incurred through watching the flop. Yeah. The big "vacuum" scene near the end? That was merely Jason X, sucking wind throughout its cheaply executed ass.

Maybe Freddy vs. Jason will be better. Hah.

The Score

Posted 6 May 2002, 2.20 pm by Villager

A group of friends saw this the other night, and were raving about like it was the best thing since sliced bread. Given the ingredients, De Niro, Brando, and Norton, this seemed entirely feasible. Naturally, then, I was expecting something pretty good.

It's a rather typical story about a veteran theif tempted out of retirement for one last job, and the upstart who joins him to pull it off. Thiongs go smoothly enough until the upstart decides that he's being used and pulls a fast one.. all predictable enough. But that doesn't mean it's boring.

Don't watch this film expecting anything quite as good as sliced bread, though, for all its qualities. The cast are good, the plot is at least remotely interesting for the most part, and the individual performances add that bit of character and life to a film that would otherwise be fairly dull. There are few surprises, and the on screen action is predictable at best, although the magical Edward Norton spices this up with an excellent performance.

Not great, not bad, not special. But worth watching.

Tubular, man.

Posted 6 May 2002, 4.45 am by Berly

Came across this site, which is all about survival while driving in California.

Our British leader might appreciate the California speak section. See now Alexander? You can learn all about it before you come over here. The only danger not mentioned on the site is the one to your pants should I get ahold of you. *wink*

Surviving California Driving

I Am Mass Media

Posted 6 May 2002, 4.19 am by The_Roach

On an average day, I'll spend about an hour preparing for work, eight hours working, and five or six hours sleeping. That leaves (roughly) nine hours unaccounted for. Now, if you add in time for preparation and consumption of food, worship, and bathing, it brings us to a mere eight hours in which I get to do the things that I want to do.

So, what do I do? I sit on my ass. I will stare semi-blankly at this screen all night if necessary.

Sure, I have hobbies. I have about half a ton of unpainted pewter resting upon my painting desk. There's a comic strip that Spooky and I have been creating [Shameless Plug], I'm supposed to be writing a monthly newsletter for a games manufacturing company (if they ever decide to actually produce anything...), and I'm and avid reader. It seems to me as though I never have enough time to get it all done. Yet, every night, I sit here and stare at my computer monitor as if it's supposed to tell me something.

My parents have, in my opinion, a horrible habit. The television is on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While they aren't always parked in front of it's warm and inviting glow, a majority of their free time involves it. They grew up with TV, and now they grow old with it. Their parents had radio, and it is (seemingly) dying with them.

My generation has this machine, this teat from which it suckles it's view of the society. We've become more interactive with each passing step. Hearing the world, seeing the world, touching the world. Though it's a better medium than it's predecessors in terms of capabilities, I wonder if it's really progress.

The Others

Posted 5 May 2002, 10.53 pm by Villager

I'm not a great fan of horror movies. The Others starts off as a horror-movie amateur such as myself would expect; big ol' house on a fog-ridden landscape, with little civilisation in sight. Set in wartime Allied territory, the focus is on a household whereby a single mother takes care of her light-wary children soon to be helped by a dodgy-looking band of servants.

I'll try not to spoil it, but through a long and somewhat tedious chain of events the mother (Nicole Kidman) grows ever more paranoid about the possibility that the house is haunted. The children are both excellent in their performances and deserve far more praise than their more famous co-star.

The plot is tiresome, though. Interspersed with the odd moment of tension is some stereotypical acting on Kidman's part and dull and predictable developments. The twist at the end is somewhat expected, and the good points don't really stand up to the bad ones. Worth watching, but not unless there's nothing else.


Posted 5 May 2002, 1.30 pm by marilee

About a month ago, pretty much everyone living in British Columbia got a referendum ballot in the mail. The referendum looks like this:

Whereas the Government of British Columbia is committed to negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and quality; Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the following principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations?

1. Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements.
2. The terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured.
3. Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians.
4. Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians.
5. Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply.
6. Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia.
7. Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between Aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments.
8. The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people should be phased out.

Sounds relatively normal, right? A little hard to understand, but everything that is political in nature is a little hard to understand. Although, I'm guessing, if you read the questions over a couple times, that cloudy sense of confusion will likely start forming into a heavy sense that something is uneasy. The more you try to understand the questions, the less they sit right. It is also possible you will start to feel angry. Maybe thoughts such as, "Aboriginals can take my land away?" or "Aboriginals don't pay tax?" are running through your head.

The fact is that the questions listed on this referendum are ambiguous and misleading. Some of the questions are completely useless for the BC government to even ask, as the provincial government does not have the power to put through such actions.

The Canadian Constitution protects Aboriginals and other minority groups, such as French Canadians, and only the federal government can change such laws. In fact, the federal government has publicly stated that the provincial government does not have the power to change treaty negotiations and that it is wrong that the referendum implies such.

What I find interesting is the fact that there really isn't a need for the referendum in the first place. If the BC Liberals wanted to adopt the principles stated on the referendum ( or at least the ones that are legally possible) there is nothing that is stopping them from doing so. There is no law stating that they must ask our opinion before putting these principles in place.

The first question on the referendum already is a truth in British Columbia. Private land very rarely is an issue when it comes to treaty settlements. When it is an issue, it is usually because someone offers to sell the land and someone else wants to buy it, but never because Natives force owners to sell land. The only reason why it is on the referendum is so people will get upset and worried that their land could play a part in treaty negotiations. No one wants their land taken away from them. The question is only there as a fear tactic, it sets you up to hate the Natives and answer in favor of the government for the rest of the ballot.

Question number 6 would take away the rights that Natives have to govern themselves. It would basically mean that Native governments would be powerless and the provincial government would gain all control. Native self-government is protected by the Constitution, and should not be brought into question by the provincial government.

The last question is also clearly a ridiculous one for the provincial government to be asking. If it were the federal government asking, although many Canadians would likely answer "no," it would be acceptable. It all comes down to the fact that the provincial government does not have this right, so why they even ask is beyond me and the majority of BC.

Voting "no" to the majority or even all of the questions may seem like the right thing to do, but think again. If you can't even figure out what yes means on some of these questions, then what exactly does no mean? By voting at all, you are wrongly acknowledging the provincial government's belief that they have the right to change Aboriginal rights which are protected by the Crown. Also, a majority no vote is not binding, so in essence you have thrown away your vote while supporting the provincial governments false implications and offensive treatment of the Aboriginals.

On the other side of the world, in Pakistan, another completely useless and ridiculous referendum took place.

What group were you in at school?

Posted 5 May 2002, 12.33 pm by Craig

Visit Site.

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: 3 Guests: 72

Art Collection Minimize
Click for larger image

Doggybag/baggy_dog is an artist living and working in Barga, Italy. Click here to read about this piece in his own words.

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 0.0146 seconds