Payback CA

Member Profile

Real Name: David

Member Since: July 22, 2006
Last Power Points used: May 14, 2011
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to Payback

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Golden Retriever Really Wants To Race But.. has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 17 Badge!

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping VideoSift clear of duplicate videos has earned you your "Super Duper" Level 2 Badge!

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on It's Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Florida has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

lucky760 says...

i KNEW it!

youuuu...

Payback said:

Hey, finally had some time to bugger with this computer. My hosts file already had 2 entries, sending me to the old VS. No clue how that came about...

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your dedication to finding diamonds in the rough and pushing videos of other members to success has earned you your "Assister" Level 2 Badge!

newtboy says...

@Payback, I'll put in my 2 cents on this discussion with @messenger, since it's stayed public.

I feel like you both seem to have a point about why certain users should be reminded of the sift 'rules' about attacking, intentionally offensive, and racist comments. It seems it's really about what gets your goat, for one of you it's racist hate speech, for the other it's self righteous misogyny. They do both add by giving an example of the 'wrong' side of many debates, and can both be trying to deal with.
From what I've seen, lantern has been more egregious about attacking others and actually threatening violence, while Shiny is just the same old annoying, hyper religious 'if you don't believe exactly what I do you're wrong, evil, and going to hell' crap. I'm not sure either really rises to the level of a ban, but both could certainly do with a refresher on what the 'rules' here are (as could most of us at times).

Payback said:

I guess it's the holier-than-thou, condescending attitude over Lantern's just being wrong...

I agree on one item though, they are both ass beef.

http://videosift.com/video/Behold-the-mesmerising-power-of-UP-s-buxom-charm#comment-1266585

There are more than a couple others, but that's the one which was my "telephone pole that broke the camel's back".

messenger says...

I'm still not seeing the difference. Everything you said about SB equally applies to Lantern except for the details of the problem (like it being non-scientific, and so forth).

"Allowing" opinions like SBs also makes it possible to begin to understand the "wrong" side of the argument. I've sharpened these atheist claws considerably speaking with SB.

I don't remember SB attacking anyone. Can you link to an example?

Payback said:

"Allowing" opinions like Lantern's makes it possible to begin to understand the "wrong" side of the argument.

SB is just a deluded, self-aggrandizing zealot. He has no qualms attacking sifters without provocation, based only on his microscopically narrow, scientifically impossible world view.

...but, I haven't seen evidence of him in months, so I'm hoping the question is moot anyway.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos