That sucked. One of the worst TDS clips ever. I'm with that other guy that most of what he does is show clips and make a funny face. They forgot to mention the gratuitous swearing, bitches.

Does "bitches" count as * NSFW?

>> ^rychan:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
Oh wow, can't wait for the hundreds of "funny face paint on McCain" sifts.

You're going to have to -- that project looks pretty difficult to re-implement, and Microsoft Research isn't likely to give out source code or get it into a product quickly.


Please. They may not give out the source code, but as soon as they figure out how to put Clippy into it, it'll be in Walmart.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Oh wow, can't wait for the hundreds of "funny face paint on McCain" sifts.


You're going to have to -- that project looks pretty difficult to re-implement, and Microsoft Research isn't likely to give out source code or get it into a product quickly.

Oh wow, can't wait for the hundreds of "funny face paint on McCain" sifts.

*beggy weggy for funny face!

couldn't agree more - Why dont ppl think before they make a thumbnail LOL
oh well - it was one of the better ones on youtue (using this type of effect)



In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Thumb ruins it

I just noticed you had posted half of the source material for my recent sift. The other half is here as well. That's VS for ya.

Don't forget to check out the source material:

Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face and AC/DC's Back in Black.

holey Jeebus... Thanks for that, Schmawy!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*promote

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You guys are mean- this dude's awesome, funny face and all.

"Sex is a joke to god"
"what?"
"Why do you think you make such funny faces during"

Looris,

First off, that initial 'discussion' dissolved into a fight and there was very little constructive dialogue taking place... rickegee's points were made during that first round and obviously, you also were not listening to what was being said or else you would have discarded it then.

I think you also need to work on your listening skills before blaming everyone else for not listening to you, it's a two way street, and I've noticed in past issues regarding posts you've made that you seem to fan the flames of an argument before even being willing to entertain the idea that you are wrong... whether or not this is intentional on you part I cannot say, but regardless, it is not constructive and I think you should work to grow out of this.

I get that you wanted this to be saved because it was of higher quality... I heard this argument, so did many others, but it just didn't stand up... I mean, c'mon, it's just a silly little clip of a guy getting injured, in my opinnion I don't really think that much more 'quality' is really necessary... or warrants setting any kind of precendents.

Secondly, I don't think you can argue that it is wrong to delete the post on it's second time in through discussion. Not everyone was present for that first 'discussion'. Such is the nature of the internet, we can't all be around 24/7 to deal with disputes... lucky obviously wasn't around the first time, and neither was I, we both obvously felt that this was something that slipped by and needed to be corrected.

Also, just because somebody returned it to the sift does not mean you get some kind of stamp of approval that the post is now inviolate. It doesn't work that way, people can still take issue with it. So take a couple of deep breaths, think about what I've said and move on.

In reply to your comment:
“thanks, THIS does make sense.

first of all, please not i really couldn't care less about the votes. i told it MANY times already: i care about the quality. i told in my first post i'd have discarded mine if the other post was edited to embed that one i posted.

what really upset me now, was the fact that is was already been discussed, and then somebody passes by and discard it. this doesn't make sense. what's the point in discussing anything if when you are not watching somebody else ignores whatever has been done until now and disrupts it all?

that's the point.

there should be some policy about this kind of thing, if users don't have enough sense to figure it out.

(i'll copy+paste this in the post, too)

In reply to your comment:
“looris, just so you know, I reblogged that sift because I felt it had not been resolved... the arguments for or again' it seemed to dissolve into circular fighting... and, most importantly, I agreed with what rickegee had said:

" My nightmare is having Bart's funny line from Simpsons Treehouse of Horror 33, the whole episode of Treehouse of Horror 33, Bart's and Lisa's funny lines from Treehouse of Horror 33 which includes Bart's funny line from original post one, and bart + homer + lisa plus maggie's funny face which includes content from all of the previous posts but in Brightcove which is prettier . . ."

By allowing that sift to continue hanging about I felt a dangerous precendent was being set and frankly, four seconds or so of some guy injuring himself was not worth opening that door for. I'm sorry if you're upset but there are rules here that need to be upheld. I'm sure you'll make up for the lost votes in no time.”

(as i wrote to raven)

thanks, THIS does make sense.

first of all, please not i really couldn't care less about the votes. i told it MANY times already: i care about the quality. i told in my first post i'd have discarded mine if the other post was edited to embed that one i posted.

what really upset me now, was the fact that is was already been discussed, and then somebody passes by and discard it. this doesn't make sense. what's the point in discussing anything if when you are not watching somebody else ignores whatever has been done until now and disrupts it all?

that's the point.

there should be some policy about this kind of thing, if users don't have enough sense to figure it out.

In reply to your comment:
“looris, just so you know, I reblogged that sift because I felt it had not been resolved... the arguments for or again' it seemed to dissolve into circular fighting... and, most importantly, I agreed with what rickegee had said:

" My nightmare is having Bart's funny line from Simpsons Treehouse of Horror 33, the whole episode of Treehouse of Horror 33, Bart's and Lisa's funny lines from Treehouse of Horror 33 which includes Bart's funny line from original post one, and bart + homer + lisa plus maggie's funny face which includes content from all of the previous posts but in Brightcove which is prettier . . ."

By allowing that sift to continue hanging about I felt a dangerous precendent was being set and frankly, four seconds or so of some guy injuring himself was not worth opening that door for. I'm sorry if you're upset but there are rules here that need to be upheld. I'm sure you'll make up for the lost votes in no time.

thanks, THIS does make sense.

first of all, please not i really couldn't care less about the votes. i told it MANY times already: i care about the quality. i told in my first post i'd have discarded mine if the other post was edited to embed that one i posted.

what really upset me now, was the fact that is was already been discussed, and then somebody passes by and discard it. this doesn't make sense. what's the point in discussing anything if when you are not watching somebody else ignores whatever has been done until now and disrupts it all?

that's the point.

there should be some policy about this kind of thing, if users don't have enough sense to figure it out.

(i'll copy+paste this in the post, too)

In reply to your comment:
“looris, just so you know, I reblogged that sift because I felt it had not been resolved... the arguments for or again' it seemed to dissolve into circular fighting... and, most importantly, I agreed with what rickegee had said:

" My nightmare is having Bart's funny line from Simpsons Treehouse of Horror 33, the whole episode of Treehouse of Horror 33, Bart's and Lisa's funny lines from Treehouse of Horror 33 which includes Bart's funny line from original post one, and bart + homer + lisa plus maggie's funny face which includes content from all of the previous posts but in Brightcove which is prettier . . ."

By allowing that sift to continue hanging about I felt a dangerous precendent was being set and frankly, four seconds or so of some guy injuring himself was not worth opening that door for. I'm sorry if you're upset but there are rules here that need to be upheld. I'm sure you'll make up for the lost votes in no time.

looris, just so you know, I reblogged that sift because I felt it had not been resolved... the arguments for or again' it seemed to dissolve into circular fighting... and, most importantly, I agreed with what rickegee had said:

" My nightmare is having Bart's funny line from Simpsons Treehouse of Horror 33, the whole episode of Treehouse of Horror 33, Bart's and Lisa's funny lines from Treehouse of Horror 33 which includes Bart's funny line from original post one, and bart + homer + lisa plus maggie's funny face which includes content from all of the previous posts but in Brightcove which is prettier . . ."

By allowing that sift to continue hanging about I felt a dangerous precendent was being set and frankly, four seconds or so of some guy injuring himself was not worth opening that door for. I'm sorry if you're upset but there are rules here that need to be upheld. I'm sure you'll make up for the lost votes in no time.

In reply to your comment:
“or ignoring what other people say, like YOU are doing.

moreover, this had ALREADY been blogged, and RETURNED. MANY other gold stars passed by and if they did not plainly approve, they didn't even disapprove.

discarding this after it was already discussed is just like saying that all the other members opinions are worthless.

i'm tired of talking with people who aren't bothering to even listen.”