Man, those colors are great.
Anonymous asked: Most bands perform and tour constantly to promote their music - do you ever feel inclined to try that with Lemon Demon?
No. I basically don’t do any of the normal things you’re supposed to do because everything I do is just a side project and nothing is my real job.
Wow, I’d forgotten about this game. I used to spend hours on it.
Wow so pinball
The single greatest gif of The First Doctor ever.
Of all time.
I asked Reddit a question about my Pokemon and now they’re all like oh dear your pokemon is not of a superior stock it does not have yadda yadda and was born with the wrong ability its only possible use is for breeding to create a pokemon that is fit to rise above the dirty pokemon masses.
Competitive Pokemon trainers are the worst people.
it’s like dog breeding only…even dumber.
It has been suggested that this understanding of political activity
provides no standard or criterion for distinguishing between
good and bad political projects or for deciding to do one thing rather than another. This, again, is an unfortunate misreading of what I said: ‘everything figures, not with what stands next to it, but with the whole’. Those who are accustomed to judge everything in relation to ‘justice’, or ‘solidarity’, or ‘welfare’ or some other abstract ‘principle’, and know no other way of thinking and speaking, may perhaps be asked to consider how, in fact, a barrister in a Court of Appeal argues the inadequacy of the damages awarded to his client. Does he say, ‘This is a glaring injustice’, and leave it at that? Or may he be expected to say that the damages awarded are ‘out of line with the general level of damages currently being awarded in libel actions’? And if he says this, or something like it, is he to be properly accused of not engaging in argument of any sort, or of having no standard or criterion, or of merely referring to ‘what was done last time’? (Cf. Aristotle, Analytica Priora, II. 23.) Again, is Mr N. A. Swanson all at sea when he argues in this fashion about the revolutionary proposal that the bowler in cricket should be allowed to ‘throw’ the ball: ‘the present bowling action has evolved as a sequence, from underarm by way of round-arm to over-arm, by successive legislation of unorthodox actions. Now, I maintain that the “throw” has no place in this sequence .. .’? Or, is Mr G. H. Fender arguing without a standard or criterion, or is he merely expressing a ‘hunch’, when he contends that the ‘throw’ has a place in this sequence and should be permitted? And is it so far fetched to describe what is being done here and elsewhere as ‘exploring the intimations’ of the total situation? And, whatever we like to say in order to bolster up our self-esteem, is not this the manner in which changes take place in the design of anything, furniture, clothes, motor-cars and societies capable of political activity? Does it all become much more intelligible if we exclude circumstance and translate it into the idiom of ‘principles’, the bowler, perhaps. arguing his ‘natural right’ to throw? And, even then, can we exclude circumstance: would there ever be a question of the right to throw if the right to bowl over-arm had not already been conceded? At all events, I may perhaps be allowed to reiterate my view that moral and political ‘principles’ are abridgments of traditional manners of behaviour, and to refer specific conduct to ‘principles’ is not what it is made to appear (viz. referring it to a criterion which is reliable because it is devoid of contingency, like a so-called ‘just price’).
Another example of the art that will be featured in a Kickstarter I’m working on! You can visit the page here! Thanks for your support so far guys! It helps me out a lot!
I love them
Gradius - Konami, 1985. Original art and arcade screen version.
Page 1 of 379