Sidewalk Canon (Part I) Basics
18:43.31 280-10 OTC
Assuming the average reader of this document is of legal driving age, the composition is simple...lanes. Lanes of travel create a methodology for consistency amongst users. One lane travels one direction and confines those portioned to combat variables within that boundary, the while the opposing direction equates the same tasks within it's segmentation.

Direction of travel is not consistent the world over, so presuming this document governs North American habitats, we will instill that the right lane is the advancing conduit. Subsequently, the left facing lane would confine the opposing direction and in effect be off limits under the principle act of forward progression.

This is the foundation of the sidewalk canon. The following parts within this series will detail the variables that apply while maintaining this nucleus.

Sidewalk Canon - Introduction (New York Edition)
19:13.6 279-10 OTC
Walking through Manhattan is both vexing and antagonistic. This is in large part due to the contemporaneous disconnect of civility from culture. As spatial consciousness declines, a seemingly negligible maneuver trickles into a catastrophic blitzkrieg of dysfunction. This chaotic remapping of courtesy macerates passages to achievement.

What is required is complicity. Rules of driving are mandated to create a practicable, unobstructed and cautious method of transportation. Walking should be enriched with the same principles outside of crudely fashioned and often misnomered obliged congeniality.

The Sidewalk Canon series will attempt to do just that. Over the next 15+ days, we will unveil an edict per day, crafted specifically for the common man to utilize in his traversing of the streets of a metropolitan city to the efficacy for an ease of psychological and physical congestion.

Tomorrow will begin with an understanding of the very rudimentary structure we inhibit. Stay tuned.
God v. Trees
17:14.30 277-10 OTC
What if "God's" path sequestered for you is not about you. What if it were in fact His aspirations for you to wield yourself upon one particular individual to lend guidance or permanence, as would a disciple's intrinsic worth to Jesus Christ? Then you would have failed, no? It brings into question the certainty that one has that God's message is solely intended to ease the comfort of the believer and not bequeath counseling by way of sacrifice towards the sum of His ruse.

What does God need with you? He created you and could as easily cease your existence. It would be irrational to believe that he necessitates anything of you...with the exception that a deity requires subservience to be celestial.

Surely most believers entitle themselves to some reward for faith otherwise what would God's message be, "Give, and not receive"? Sound familiar? That is the message invoked yet it fails the test of humanity and the fundamental practice of religion. When performing an ethical act, we proceed out of faith for a moral reward, an electrochemical stimulant or belief in accession into His better graces. It would be quite improbable to surrender one's totality to purely ethical acts if sans this recompense. Even the bible notates that we are architecturally designed to covet in exchange for compensation otherwise tentative questions would be raised and faith would strain. This is what has occurred unto the decline of religion. Questions with no answers and deeds with no rewards. Often times one poises the, "how can he..." reservations for natural deviations of a 'perfectly' crafted world and find little else to surrender to than faith and thusly struggle to seek out miniscule variables to proclaim as coups.

Human curiosity, whether crafted by God as a will or nature as an instrument, demands riposte.

Imagine a world where no one believed in God. Not one person to even urge an ethereal resolution. Would he exist? Now suppose everyone attempted to disbelieve trees. Would they exist? The supposition is that somewhere, someone would find a tree and denial would be impracticable. A tree exists as much as you or I, therefore it is as only believable as you or I. God does not bestow these luxuries comparable to humanity. If everyone cancelled out His notion, he would cease to exist. There are no sincere hallmarks or traipses to share to one another but notions created to give credentials that no one can validate but can employ. "That is his plan." ...a test? To challenge you to follow an undefined path to an indeterminate destination with an anonymous assurance?

Why such cruelty? To gift us with prying but tender no absolutes? The only analogous paradigms of this are found in games.

God crafts players on a board, tests their willingness to serve his zeal with unimaginable horrors, and rewards them with indirect perceptions of serenity. Yet beware, should you fail, then torment and anguish will follow you for an eternity.

Sounds fun.

This blurred premise allows for the disparities that religion grants. Thousands of faiths with a common name but a dissimilar conduit. So how can you be sure? How can one be so certain that the message being taught is the one you are following?

Perseverance? Such signs brought about through trials and tribulations? Then suppose that through thirty days of indescribable chaos, you still found yourself further amongst the supposed incongruity deemed detrimental. Is that not to some degree of perseverance, a kinder message? What then must connotate this perseverance as antithetical?

How does free will apply if the definitions are already purportedly defined?

Suppose again that God doesn't need you. Then what is His purpose for you? To live?

Often times most religious arguments devolve to this very notion, that in the end, living mattered most. God has no need for you to capitulate to him, he can make or break any contract that you could conceive. He could swat away mischievous sprites, daemons and Hell, and excuse your sins with an effortless gesture -- all of his invention. Why would he want you to suffer? To what gain does he have by conjuring such impediments for you?

It's far more conceivable that should God exist and he occurs with obligatory compassion that he doesn't care what decisions you make. Like a father to a child, he hopes the choices made are successful and gratifying but does not interfere because this child was given the tools to live free. Not to compete for father's attention or indulgences, but to pursue satisfaction in life as a whole...for yourself. We don't ask others to sacrifice for us, we hope they are willing to.

God doesn't need you. He is perfectly capable of governing his empire without humanity's suppositions that what they do, matters. You may trek across great swaths of land or love unconditionally and God would not care. He cannot be as conceited as to demand your 24/7 servitude to his every whim if his neutrality is ardor.

God asks nothing of you but to live free. To live life as the yearnings persuade with hopes that you have dwelled with as much love as he shared for you. God doesn't need you...he hopes for you.

Then life, is what you make of it. In a civil congruency, your life must appease others and yourself far before the notion of what God might want, if anything.

(If I could be told it was something even irrelevantly corporal, then it wouldn't have drawn the impression of a religious cynicism.)

Welcome to the end. Affixed to this website for several years has been pages 37 to 65 of Marx for Beginners which with a breath of levity submits a very unpolluted history of religion. I challenge you to read it's extremely Occum's explanation.

Supplement to that, a mere ten minutes of wisdom from the maestro himself.
Bless-ed is Joe Pesci.

Merry Winter Solstice!
FV3* and Winter Solstice
18:20.49 276-10 OTC
Inundated by the holidays, immoderate weather and scheduling conflicts, we have been slow to follow up on Part I of the FV3* documentary series, in addition to the FV3* website's dissolution from beta, marketing, merchandising and other caveats. Cognitive of these current deviations, we have rescheduled all pending releases for early next year ('071).

Meanwhile, this evening we tangibly celebrate the Winter Solstice with a spectacular, hopefully catastrophic, coinciding lunar event.

To all of those that we here at allot clemency for, a very Happy Winter Solstice.

To those we condemn, eat it.
Page Share Options
16:31.59 273-10 OTC
After numerous technical issues over the last several months, we have finally released from beta and installed the 'share' button to all applicable pages throughout

Amidst this process we found our moral indignation for the book of face's interpretation of admiration exceeding our threshold and thusly took it upon ourselves to eradicate it from our medium, forever.

Should you experience any errors, please contact our and identify in detail the gaucherie.