*kill since I can't excerpt like I'd wanted to. I'll post again another way.

Hi @rkellyoneil- What's the deal with this article? Why'd you sign up just to apparently paste an excerpt from an article here?

It feels really strange and like your intentions may not be pure.

Excerpt of http://videosift.com/video/Volkswagen-Golf-engine-pulling

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

PROMETHEUS' GARDEN (excerpt) - Bruce Bickford has been added as a related post - related requested by chingalera on that post.

*dead but http://videosift.com/video/Michel-Parbot-Empire-Strikes-Back-lost-documentary-excerpts replaces this with the whole thing!

I see nothing wrong with a cop telling someone off for being an asshole driver. Who gives a shit whose "fault" it is in the eyes of an insurance company. You brake suddenly for no reason, that makes you a *dick-head*. It's called reckless driving. Smarten the fuck up.

Yeah maybe the cop was too close, but the biker has mirrors. He has eyes. He has/should have common sense. He can see there's a car behind him and no one in front.

The biker's a shit driver.

What's with his description anyway, how many times did he re-work that *gem* until he felt it made him seem like he was totally innocent? "It wasn't me! It was judge Dredd!" What is that an excerpt from a novel?

I will have to expand on what I posted later (at work now) - but I am sure that you are right that the guy clearly knows what he is doing. Most legit instructors are very well trained - but that is also why I feel this is a bit of misleading training - a very large part of this "training" is to allow these people to feel empowered (which does have value),

It's only a small excerpt but it's all I have to go on until I see more.

What I saw is that these two very scripted scenarios are based the assumption that the shooter is going to come in through the door like that - once that doesn't in fact happen it all falls apart. There are other many problems as well.

It's like when someone wants to show you a martial arts move they learned and ask you to grab their hand... then they say no wait - grab the other hand... because that's what they trained for.

It also seemed a very PG rated training.

Even if he takes out one person if the rest are gang-tackling him i.e doing something, then this advice strikes me as solid.

The point here is to take action. Also you're watching a small excerpt from a training course given by a guy who clearly knows what he's doing.

So somebody did fix your dead video with an incorrect embed. Check out the length of your original -- it is 9 minutes, not a full length show.

There is a lot of crappy undeading done around here, I must say. To replace a full length show with a nine minute excerpt is blatantly wrong.

it's part of the same full lenght show I posted. this is the first ten minutes ... but as I understand we usually don't call "dupeof" on excerpts ...?

http://gawker.com/5969701/all-the-reasons-that-baby+snatching-eagle-video-is-fake

Favorite excerpt:

"....Everyone immediately accepted its veracity.

Even on typically far-from-credulous Internet forums there was nary a "fake" and/or "gay" to be found."

We were calling it fake early. Yeah for us!

This is only "good" progress for a 2nd-world nation. Obama can't run on his record.

The American people (those who vote anyway) aren't buying that this is the best that can be done.

President Mitt will succeed or fail based on how closely he adheres to conservative fiscal principles.

As for govt. spending, don't worry, it's always increasing.



>> ^bareboards2:

And progress has been made. Thanks for reminding us all of just how smart and aware President Obama is.
If Obama loses, all I can hope for is that Moderate Mitt shows up. Because if we get Tea Party Brown Noser Mitt, we are headed for an economic disaster. Mitt is fond of saying we are currently headed in the direction of Greece. If we go all Tea Party, we will head in the direction of Spain.
Moderate economic action based on economic facts is what will save us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/krugman-the
-secret-of-our-non-success.html?_r=0
Take a moment to read about economic research. An excerpt:
The U.S. economy finally seems to be recovering in earnest, with housing on the rebound and job creation outpacing growth in the working-age population. But the news is good, not great — it will still take years to restore full employment — and it has been a very long time coming. Why has the slump been so protracted?
The answer — backed by overwhelming evidence — is that this is what normally happens after a severe financial crisis. But Mitt Romney’s economic team rejects that evidence. And this denialism bodes ill for policy if Mr. Romney wins next month.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Back in February 2009, President Obama told Today Show host Matt Lauer that he’d be a one-term president if he didn’t fix the economy in three years.
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

And progress has been made. Thanks for reminding us all of just how smart and aware President Obama is.

If Obama loses, all I can hope for is that Moderate Mitt shows up. Because if we get Tea Party Brown Noser Mitt, we are headed for an economic disaster. Mitt is fond of saying we are currently headed in the direction of Greece. If we go all Tea Party, we will head in the direction of Spain.

Moderate economic action based on economic facts is what will save us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/krugman-the-secret-of-our-non-success.html?_r=0

Take a moment to read about economic research. An excerpt:

The U.S. economy finally seems to be recovering in earnest, with housing on the rebound and job creation outpacing growth in the working-age population. But the news is good, not great — it will still take years to restore full employment — and it has been a very long time coming. Why has the slump been so protracted?

The answer — backed by overwhelming evidence — is that this is what normally happens after a severe financial crisis. But Mitt Romney’s economic team rejects that evidence. And this denialism bodes ill for policy if Mr. Romney wins next month.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Back in February 2009, President Obama told Today Show host Matt Lauer that he’d be a one-term president if he didn’t fix the economy in three years.
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”