^-- thanks people, I feel a better now.

>> ^Thylan:
I am familiar with that cartoon. It's starting point, is the suposition of normal people.
For VS this suposition does not hold true.


I agree, BTW. I just thought it was a funny cartoon.

More from the author of this talk topic:

I recently got a bit burned in my attempts to poll sifters about their attitudes concerning this site for use in a paper I am writing. At the start, I could not decide on the most ethical and impartial way to go about my polling here and, having guessed wrong, I was again uncertain whether or how to continue. Kind words from Dag and Burdturgler have encouraged me to ask the last two of five planned poll topics using my “real” account (this one).

Please ignore this topic if polling bugs you. I have noticed that people generally enjoy using SiftTalk to share their thoughts on various aspects of the Sift community and I continue to hope that you all will enjoy reading and writing here in that same spirit, even though I have created the topic with an outside agenda. I assure you, this has nothing whatsoever to do with marketing, it’s just my dopey homework. The questions I’ve been asking basically reflect the thoughts I already have concerning this site and it is interesting for me to see community members address these directly.

Answering my own question: 
Interestingly, though, this account is basically just as anonymous as the other one was. There is very little to connect the person I am at work, at home, at school, running for office (which I’m not) or anywhere else with the things I post and say here. I have only ever been a minor character here in the community, so I don’t suppose people here actually “know” me. Regardless of that, I do tend to take comments thrown “my” way a bit personally and I generally try to be cool to others by being helpful and positive, even though I can sometimes also be sarcastic and wrong. In other words, my personality here is pretty much like my personality in real life. However, being anonymous means that I might occasionally admit to things (either tacitly or literally, through votes or comments) that I would not otherwise do somewhere like LinkedIn or even FaceBook. I suppose a motivated investigator could pull it all together though.

>> ^Deano:


I thought it would help keep things more impartial. I didn't want responses that might be somehow influenced by my previous video posts or especially my (often under-informed) comments. I figured it would be OK so long as I was upfront about it. In retrospect, not a great idea.

LOL. My thoughts exactly!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Hahaa. Nice avatar. Well that will surely add an interesting twist to a paper about online communities! Thanks for coming out.

*dead

A great sequence from the film and one of just two songs (I think) that were in the movie but not on the original double LP. Well, a drastically cut version of this one is actually on the LP and, interestingly, the full lyrics were also printed on the sleeve so it must have been a very last-minute cut. The other song in the film but not the LPs is "When the Tigers Broke Free", which is also excellent, IMHO.

Anybody know if these were restored in later versions of the CD?

You realize that this is going to be a part of your perrrrrmanent record....

Keep it phony, keep it safe. Let's all run through the bland machine! Nice advice.

I'm glad to see that you enjoyed the interview with Rebecca Watson that I posted a while back--and thanks for promoting it! I wasn't expecting a top-15 hit, but I was kinda disappointed that it died with just my own vote on it. Hopefully more people will check it out this time...

P.S., I also really liked Robert Wright's talk at TED. (your favorite sift)


In reply to this comment by jwray:
*promote

ahhhhh. A little Grateful Dead helps to get the dishes done this rainy Thursday...

Wow, lots of trombone vids in your PQ. You play 'bone? (I do!) You might also like: http://www.videosift.com/video/How-its-made-Trombones

Ha ha! Actually sheepsen would be best--I live in Denmark.


In reply to this comment by laura:
I love the word "sheeple"...but hey, in this instance wouldn't it be better writen as "sheepson" ?


In reply to this comment by Constitutional_Patriot:
That's something a sheeple would say. ... seriously how much did you watch?

A sheep says "Baaaaaaaa", if my childhood speaking toys were at all accurate.

I watched all of it, and I want my 30 minutes back. I was waiting for some actual evidence to back up the claims being made here. They make broad, damning accusations, most of which I had not heard before (though some I had heard from John Bolton, who I do not respect). If I am to be convinced of any of it, they need to back these up with something other than additional unsubstantiated claims or playing the same sound-bite clips two or three times. To me, these guys sound like "UFOlogists".

I am not convinced that an organization like the UN, which does not seem terribly effective in most ways, and in which the US has veto power, is in any position to negate any part of US constitution or establish world "dictatorship" that resembles China in the 50s. I see no danger that the UN will eliminate Christianity in the US. It *might* be true, but this video does not convince me of that. We get one guy pointing out a few sentences from a UN resolution that is similar to a law passed in the US. That does not necessarily mean that that law was written by the UN and forced onto the US. Again, it *might* be true, but the video does not convince me.

The statements I could verify, which were few (and I didn't really try very hard--you are very welcome to convince me), I found to be patently false. Such as the idea that Atheism and Paganism are the same thing, or that humanism is based on the occult. I see no signs of pressure from the UN to eliminate the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. I am unaware of any statements or resolutions by the UN that are related to enforcing any type of religion. I tried the Google search suggested at the end of the first video and found some legislation that is absolutely disturbing (The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act), but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the UN.

In my opinion, a nation that adheres to the treaties it has signed is not surrendering its sovereignty--it is exercising it. Just as a man who honors his promises is not less of a man for it.

I think that many aspects of freedom and privacy of Americans are under threat, but these threats are coming from within the US, not from the UN.

A sheep would buy the argument of whoever shouts the loudest, and these guys are shouting pretty loud. A sheep would agree with an argument just because Ron Paul or The John Birch Society made it. I am skeptical about this video. That may be because I am badly informed, but is not a sign of my being a sheep. I usually enjoy the videos you submit and the arguments you make, CP, so I was extra disappointed with this one. I would like for you to enlighten me about some of the issues here, thereby redeeming part of my 30 minutes, but name-calling will not do that. I'd like to see some discussion, which is why I did not down-vote the video even though I was so thoroughly unimpressed with it.

Very interesting, especially the way they use ice to support the tube while they bend it. I suppose that's the original "U-Tube".

Note though that the 'bone is assembled incorrectly in the opening shot--the slide is rotated 180 degrees from where it should be (and the mouth piece is missing).

This is in no way convincing.