Not really totally understanding the reference, not being a South Park fan.

but...

OKAY!!!!


In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bmacs27" title="member since August 21st, 2009" class="profilelink">bmacs27 -- you mean the fact that these smart-ass cartoon makers with potty mouths write the most successful musical in years and sweep the Tonys last year, selling out every single show for months into the future, while Broadway professionals who have slaved at their craft for decades and have yet to have a hit? That subtext?


How about you kind lady? Could I trouble you for a quick Lewinsky?

I do not understand?

I thought I did, until I focused on the word "EVERY''

I need clarificationing
In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
You do realize that just by watching this video every cute animal in the world suffers unimaginable agony right?

http://videosift.com/video/The-Future-Sound-of-London-Papua-New-Guinea

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I think the other way peppermint is the blue and spearmint the green, at least when it comes to some things. I think! Definitely still sticking in the mint family at least!

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Did you just go from Peppermint to Spearmint or something?

"melt stuff in space"? What does that mean? Like, shoot lasers at satellites? Suspend things in his shop and melt them with jets of hot air?

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Yea, the guy that made it used to melt stuff in space for a living, so I'm not surprised it came out pretty awesomesauce.

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
Best BM timelapse I've seen. Just forwarded it to portland@burningman.com in fact.

Thanks for uploading it!

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Thanks man!

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
*promote

Best BM timelapse I've seen. Just forwarded it to portland@burningman.com in fact.

Thanks for uploading it!

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Thanks man!

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
*promote

You mean, apart from everything we know about how the brain works? And that our experience of consciousness is a function of that organ?

Moreover, what is the alternative, an immortal "soul"?

edit: oops, meant to reply in the comment thread.

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
>> ^hpqp:

Uh, yeah, it's the same as your "conscious experience" before you existed.
>> ^bmacs27:
So, do you guys hold any opinion on what happens to your conscious experience after death?



You should listen to Admiral Ackbar more often.

What evidence do you have for that opinion?

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

It's my natural charm and sparkling personality.

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Why do all these people troll you so much? Every video seems to have Genji whatever calling you out for some ridiculous belief he assumes you hold. You must have really gotten to some people around here.

You sifted and dropped the Dread Big Red P!

Welcome.

Yeah, well, good teachers aren't THIS dry.

It was interesting to me how his delivery didn't change, but there came moments for me when what he was saying came fully alive. It felt like he was wearing his lecture hat, and then he put on his passion hat. I could hear him better when he was wearing his passion hat.

I have done a bit of acting and directing... I wanted to get ahold of him and help him find the passion in every moment.

It was a great speech nonetheless. I hope your vid gets published.


In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Thanks for the promote. It's definitely dry, but learning often is.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
*promote

Mr Souter's delivery is dry dry dry. But man oh man, does he say some interesting stuff. ("Stuff" is a lazy word, but it gets the idea across.)

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Good comments on the evolution of the eye bro. It was, err, eye opening? hoho.

Thanks for the comment - but don't forget to vote for vids you liked!

In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
Wow. I completely disagree. I think Jon had some really valid points. His criticism of MSNBC really has been proportional. He's always clear that they are not the enemy, Fox News is the enemy. Still, they are not helping by responding to Fox News (and I think he comes correct on that front) with basically a cutesy version of Fox News. What Rachel didn't get is that Jon sees tremendous potential her. She could be a legitimate investigative journalist and a top tier interviewer. She just needs to lose just a little bit of the cute. When she gets serious, she can give you chills. If she did it regularly the show might actually get some flex. Since the journalistic talent on the left crept out of their box towards Jon's, nobody is stepping up and doing the real nitty gritty. Rachel could go down as a Bill Moyers, if she would just force you to take her seriously.

If you want to talk about false equivalence, how about the comparison between Rachel's fact checking, and Jon's? He's good at what he does. Let him do it. If you accept the world comparing what Jon Stewart does to the news, the news isn't doing their job.