i just found the armpit of the internet

its called 'blogtv.com'.

it combines the worst of internet chat, with the worst of public access cable.

briefly here is what i encounterd.

1. lisanova and her brother started a nice chat with her fans. then the software crashed and everyone lost their connection.

then i went to a 'live show' with a freeze frame of a woman. she was screaming about how someone named 'mike' was sending all his goons into her channel to ruin it. because his show got banned, or something, or she got banned from his channel... i could barely understand it. she liked to say 'what the f' alot though.

i went to uhm... mia 23, or something. she played a song on a guitar. there was n wful lot of incomprehensible and pointless gibberish in the window on the right side. she tried to read and respond to some of it. then she played another song. i tried to 'applaud', there is not button, so i tried to do thumbs up, but made a mistake, and typed 'oops'. she said 'im not going to give you ops'. i said 'i didnt mean ops i meant oops, like i made a mistake'. then someone else said 'ops', she said 'everyone stop asking for ops'. i said 'im not asking for ops, christ' and left

i went to a mans channel. he was talking about how he knew people and didnt know someone else and so forth and so on.

i went to another channel. there was a woman talking about artists vs entertainers. ok fair enough. then she had 'cohost' with an echo because the 'cohost' didnt turn on the 'headphones' mode. then they started talking about their career paths as artists etc etc etc . o. i thought the coolest part was the echo, i loved it.

there was a woman with a backwards hat, and a silent person sitting behind her. she kept talking about how the f'in stupid f'in this f'in that, her kids were f'in this and f'in that up and f'in fin fin fin fin. ok.

there were a couple of girls. like young. like "where the f are there parents", young. not under 14 id say, but god damn.. what are they doing on here? chatting with god knows who or what strangers?

the commenters are the worst though. it is like livejasmin, pretty much. show us your tits. stick this in your hole, id like to f you, etc etc etc. every channel is like 'affirmtion girl gets shit on'.

a man, had a pink floyd poster on his wall. below it, a pic of barack obama with a big red slash, and a circle, as in 'no'. the floyd poster was of the naked women sitting with their backs to the viewer. this man was talking about how he was a little cranky but once you got to know him...

there was a woman, raunchy something, she was talking about whether she could cohost with someone with just a bra on, and touch herself.

-- Update --

Ok. This is not the worst place on the internet. Not by far.

It is just, incredibly disturbing.

the genographic project, aka the genocidographi project

i read dr well's excellent book about the 'genographic project'. he is trying to use some tricks of dna analysis to map prehistorical migration patterns of groups of human beings. for example, there is a rule that the more diverse the genetic pattern of people in a place, the more likely it is that they have been there a long time. also, there are certain patterns that are in certain people, but not in others.. then of course, there is mitochondrial dna, which is passe down from your mom to you, and nucleus dna, which is passed down from your mom and your dad, and then y chromosome dna, which only guys have, and so is only passed down from your dad, and his dad, and so on.

so you mix all this information together, and some other information, and you see, for example, that there are apparently no genetic matchups with neanderthals. so apparently we didnt interbreed with them. and there are other things. like apparently, there were multiple waves of migration into the americas, a few thousand years separating the first from the most recent.
then, of course, there are the 'waves' of migration, like one group apparently spread out through india and on to the islands of oceania. but then another group came along and... yeah.

so basically, what this all amounts to, is ... a legacy of genocide after genocide after genocide. now, the neanderthals... apparently they left africa a couple hundred thousand years back, and went to live in europe. they were ok there. for a while. until we showed up, homo sapiens, like 30,000 years ago. or 50,000, i dont know.

now dr wells, he says the neanderthals got 'outcompeted'. if they only lost 1 percent of their pop a year, or whatever, theyd be gone within xyz amount of time. well thats all well and good. on the other hand, look at it like this. they survive hundreds of thousands of years, then we show up, then they die.

they didnt just get 'outcompeted'. we took their land, and we killed them. it reminds me a great deal of the history of native americans in the united states. except that in the united states case, the native americans and the europeans and the africans all intermixed, married each other, and made one big mushpot of genes. that is why we are so awesome. but anyways, ,there was 'indian removal' in the 1830s, and countless instances of outrage, brutality, and barbarous warfare that woud be considered criminal in modern day, carried out betwixt the indians and settlers of the frontier, but in later years especialy, by the government against the indians.

and so. as my college history teacher once said, although i will refrain from naming him for embarassing him as to my horribly misguided ranting and raving on this page, there is something to ask here, how did this little pipsqueak , tiny island, england, take over australia, new zealand, north america, the indies, india, south africa, and so forth and so on. australia, new zealand, the us, and canada, being almost transformed totally into european like nations both in peoiple and in custom. one century, everyone are natives, two centuries laater, everyone is speaking english.
how? how!!!

well it was a complicated answer. but basically, it is the study of 'colonialism'.. and england wsnt the only country to do it. why do they speak spanish in mexico and south america, and portugeese in brazil. and alot of it had the features of genocide, genocide and extermination of people based on their genetics. and ntothing else.

But this genographi project however, would appear to indicate, to me, at first reading, to simply tell us that this was nothing special in history. that time after time, for tens of thousands of years, we have been committing genoide against other primates, and maybe other animals, driving them out, taking their land, and kiling them. or assimilating.

but with neanderthals, no assimilation, just land grabbing and killnig.

i remembered reading about another island or peninsula smewhere, south asia i think, where one 'group' of people had come onto the island, and basically wiped out the natives. not during colonial times. but thousands of years go. what they had left were the stories. stores of the ead race who would 'rise up and sing to them'.

now ,i guess tey took all this and ra with it.


ok thats enough for now. goondight. but i find the whole thing a bit scary and depressing. just think, our normal state of being is to slaughter each other and steal fro each other ? or is it? is our normal state, to ftw up laws as just in the first plae.

anyways. good luck all.

eniga wrappd in a mystery wrapped in a nice warm whole wheat organic fair trade tortila

there is this dude, he was on npr. they had a story on 'who is the real shakespeare' . well a lot of people think it was the earl of oxford. this dude has this quote, he talks about this play, the taming of the shrew. there is a character in there with a mixture of names of people that the earl of oxford actually borrowed money from in some city over there, the same amount, the same something else, where they were from or something. so he has this quote, about how they are a 'conflation of baptista nigrone and pasquino spinola'.

and the uh, the thing is. when you go to wikipedia, and look up 'oxfordian theory', under the section on 'taming of the shrew', it has the exact same quote, almost verbatim.

and then uhm , if you google more, you find this guys site, his name is prof. daniel wright. and he has almost the exact same language in this article he wrote. back in like 2005 maybe. and another article with the same quote, 2008 or so.

and that dude on npr? his name was daniel wright!

but how did that quote end up in wikipedia?

i traced down who put that quote into the oxfordian article. it was some dude i am too lazy to remember right now. but the thing about the quote, is that it is not attributed to anyone. its just in there.

now, who is this guy? who added this quote to wikipedia? or this girl? woman? gentleman?

as far as the copyright and attribution goes its like this.
1. the person who put it in wikipedia stole it from prof wright
2. the person who put it in wikipedia -is- daniel wright.
3. daniel wright stole the quote from someone else, many many many years ago,
and the quote ended up in wikipedia.

now, daniel wright also wrote a book about this whole oxfordian theory, i think, and im too lazy to go get it from a library. but it came out several years back, and im going to give the dude the benefit of the doubt, for now, for the sake of argument, and say that he invented this quote about the 'taming of the shrew' and its implications for the ol' earl of oxford.

but what else do we know about the person who put the quote in wikipedia? the possibyl plagiarized quote, since it is without attribution? well, apparently the guy also likes the play 'high school musical', because he has a lot of edits on 'high school musical' in wikipedia. and he produced a version of 'peter pan' around august of some year, and a bunch of shakespeare.

the best guess i can get, is that the dude who put the plagiarized quote into wikipedia, might or might not be this dude in oregon that runs a playhouse that put on peter pan, at the right time, and high school musical. only problem is, that i looked up his CV and it has nothing about shakespeare. so.. i got stuck. and i pretty much gave up.

but, i just think it is funny, that this article on wikipedia, which is written by a bunch of people with fake names, is about this dude who may have written the most famous english books ever, with a fake name. and here i am talking about it, also with a fake name.

what is the deal with names then.

they are weird right?

michael keaton, the actor, was really named michael douglas, he changed it because some other big actor was named that. he took the name from diane keaton, because he read an article about her!

jon stewart actually has a longish last name, and like a lotta comedians, he shortened it up and made it catchy, 'ya know, for the kids!' or maybe some other reason...

then, stephen colbert, he has his real name, i think, but he has a totally fake personality. which reminds me of 'johny fever' in that episode of wkrp in cincinnati, when he had to change his personality to play 'rip tide', a dance announcer or something... it crushes him. but i guess its different, mr colbert wanted to do this show, this fake show, with his real name... with a fake persona. i hope to god nobody thinks it is his real persona. but i have my doubts now and then.