Football Club United of Manchester (FCUM) - it's quite unfortunate that you can hardly see the F in the video above, almost as if the Castleton Gabriels were playing against a load of cum.

Needs Peter Gabriel soundtrack.

He breaks up with Lara Flynn Boyle, and almost loses Tia Carrere to Rob Lowe. Rob Lowe people! Didn't he get caught doing some 16 year old and her mother in a video?

Oh wait, that was Gabriel Byrne in End of Days. My bad.

Shitcock!

>> ^davidraine:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
As a side issue, may I add that online gaming is possibly the hardest place to come out as gay, and the choice of insults by these wankers is testament to why. I've come out to my family, my school, my university, my friends, to the first girl who told me she loved me... the place I've got the worst reaction was online gaming. Seriously.

Sounds like someone's unfamiliar with John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/



I think X-box live is especially full of dumb adolescents. In RPGs, like oxdottir mentions, this is much less widespread.

It disturbs >> ^davidraine:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
As a side issue, may I add that online gaming is possibly the hardest place to come out as gay, and the choice of insults by these wankers is testament to why. I've come out to my family, my school, my university, my friends, to the first girl who told me she loved me... the place I've got the worst reaction was online gaming. Seriously.

Sounds like someone's unfamiliar with John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/


I am familiar with it... but it makes things that bit more unsettling. That these people would never call me a faggot to my face is perhaps true, but if we take it that (perceived) anonymity is all that it takes for them unveil their antisocial/homophobic tendencies, then they must have these tendencies in the first place. I don't believe that Internet anonymity makes people express opinions and attitudes that they don't already have. The strip you linked to is based on the premise that these are ordinary people - and that's disturbing too.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
As a side issue, may I add that online gaming is possibly the hardest place to come out as gay, and the choice of insults by these wankers is testament to why. I've come out to my family, my school, my university, my friends, to the first girl who told me she loved me... the place I've got the worst reaction was online gaming. Seriously.


Sounds like someone's unfamiliar with John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

Let this Peter Gabriel/Kate Bush collab blow your f*cking minds.

Good luck, have fun. I'll go pull my armor out of the pantry and ride off to fix the rest of the world's troubles.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I'm not removing shit. You keep fighting those great injustices, brother. I'll tell Sarah's Mom.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
That's exactly what I've done. I think she broke "the rules" when she requested it be removed, so I mock her by saying it again (or something similar). And if I want to protest that the easiest way is to mock it. (Hell, I nearly pulled the infamous chuggo video out of sift talk again too, but I can understand your problems with advertisers and didn't want to be too much of a pain to you guys.)

If the mail you got had been to me (and it was my post), I may or may not have removed the info, because if she's getting really hurt and I don't really care, then there's no reason for it to be there. I can honestly not see how she would be so hurt over that though. This is turning into Sierra Noble-gate, I think.

I can certainly understand the disassociation you talk about. The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is very true indeed, but I freely identify myself and stand by my words.

My comment was really intended for you, calvados and her; and if you've all seen it, I don't really see the use in having it anymore. If you really feel it hurts her and you (and the sift) you have my blessing to remove it, and I won't bitch about it (any more).

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dag:
One malady of Internet life I feel is that people are very quick to take action for perceived "rights" issues- but seldom consider the individual human beings that their actions affect. It's a disassocation- happens in cars because we can't readily see the people inside and consider the car to be a beast at least in some portion of our brains. We do and say things that we would never do or say to a person's face.

You've taken the easy, automatic action- flipping off a car that you think has broken the road rules. I don't expect you to see it this way, because I'm sure you're feeling fairly defensive at this point. But wow, I really do wish people were more empathetic saw the world less in shades of black and white.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

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

I'm not removing shit. You keep fighting those great injustices, brother. I'll tell Sarah's Mom.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
That's exactly what I've done. I think she broke "the rules" when she requested it be removed, so I mock her by saying it again (or something similar). And if I want to protest that the easiest way is to mock it. (Hell, I nearly pulled the infamous chuggo video out of sift talk again too, but I can understand your problems with advertisers and didn't want to be too much of a pain to you guys.)

If the mail you got had been to me (and it was my post), I may or may not have removed the info, because if she's getting really hurt and I don't really care, then there's no reason for it to be there. I can honestly not see how she would be so hurt over that though. This is turning into Sierra Noble-gate, I think.

I can certainly understand the disassociation you talk about. The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is very true indeed, but I freely identify myself and stand by my words.

My comment was really intended for you, calvados and her; and if you've all seen it, I don't really see the use in having it anymore. If you really feel it hurts her and you (and the sift) you have my blessing to remove it, and I won't bitch about it (any more).

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dag:
One malady of Internet life I feel is that people are very quick to take action for perceived "rights" issues- but seldom consider the individual human beings that their actions affect. It's a disassocation- happens in cars because we can't readily see the people inside and consider the car to be a beast at least in some portion of our brains. We do and say things that we would never do or say to a person's face.

You've taken the easy, automatic action- flipping off a car that you think has broken the road rules. I don't expect you to see it this way, because I'm sure you're feeling fairly defensive at this point. But wow, I really do wish people were more empathetic saw the world less in shades of black and white.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

That's exactly what I've done. I think she broke "the rules" when she requested it be removed, so I mock her by saying it again (or something similar). And if I want to protest that the easiest way is to mock it. (Hell, I nearly pulled the infamous chuggo video out of sift talk again too, but I can understand your problems with advertisers and didn't want to be too much of a pain to you guys.)

If the mail you got had been to me (and it was my post), I may or may not have removed the info, because if she's getting really hurt and I don't really care, then there's no reason for it to be there. I can honestly not see how she would be so hurt over that though. This is turning into Sierra Noble-gate, I think.

I can certainly understand the disassociation you talk about. The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is very true indeed, but I freely identify myself and stand by my words.

My comment was really intended for you, calvados and her; and if you've all seen it, I don't really see the use in having it anymore. If you really feel it hurts her and you (and the sift) you have my blessing to remove it, and I won't bitch about it (any more).

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dag:
One malady of Internet life I feel is that people are very quick to take action for perceived "rights" issues- but seldom consider the individual human beings that their actions affect. It's a disassocation- happens in cars because we can't readily see the people inside and consider the car to be a beast at least in some portion of our brains. We do and say things that we would never do or say to a person's face.

You've taken the easy, automatic action- flipping off a car that you think has broken the road rules. I don't expect you to see it this way, because I'm sure you're feeling fairly defensive at this point. But wow, I really do wish people were more empathetic saw the world less in shades of black and white.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

Ah my beloved San Gabriel's. I guess all of my favourite hiking trails will be slightly altered.

I will comment on something I find just as disturbing & saddening as the content of the video... The wilful, blanket misconstruance of fact in portraying "all" Christians as extremists. I've been a Christian all my life, and I've never once seen anything like this stuff. Most churches have socials, youth activities, and events - but what you see in this video is neither common, nor wide-spread. This is a video that is salaciously using a sad, misguided, tiny fraction of the Christian world. Those of you jumping on the bandwagon and lambasting the entire population based on this content are guilty of the worst form of "me-too!" propogandism. Shame on you for being that gullible, and so easily manipulated. I see more 'extremists in the making' here on the Sift than I see in the real Christian world. I sincerely hope that such sentiment is more representative of the "Gabriel Greater Internet Theory" than your actual mental landscape.

http://sc.tri-bit.com/John_Gabriel's_Greater_Internet_Fuckwad_Theory

Nice work on that playlist, Eric. I'm really digging on the live performance of Dancing with the Moonlight Knight.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thought you might be interested in my Gabriel/Genesis playlist.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/Peter-Gabriel-Genesis

Thought you might be interested in my Gabriel/Genesis playlist.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/Peter-Gabriel-Genesis

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Ok, good points about the non-humanness of angels. I can accept that Gabriel was very androgynous in that scene/movie. But what about Lucifer then? He is most definitely a masculine character. Kinda seems like they're attempting at having both interpretations instead of one or the other.

^enoch:

this is why gabriel is known as the angel of resurrection,and his punishment/duty is to stand watch over the four watchtowers- north(might be south,too lazy to check)and will utter no sound until the end-times(book of john,gabriel blows his horn).

Sorry to single you out enoch, but the idea that Gabriel blows the trumpet in the end times is not found anywhere in scripture, the earliest source for this is from an Armenian manuscript from 1455, and it reached the English language in Milton's Paradise Lost. As for not uttering a sound until the end times, the Bible specifically names Gabriel and the angel who announces the births of John the Baptist and Jesus (Luke 1:5-20 and Luke 1:26-38 respectively) hence his title as the Archangel of Annunciation.

Yes there are many different stories about angels, many of which contradict each other, but the standard beliefs as written in the Bible and accepted by the major churches stand on their own.

I know I am picking at a movie you guys enjoy immensely, I'm not trying to attack your taste/choice, I just think it's a little odd the way they chose to portray it. Either way, I don't really know anything about the movie or its universe so I'll shut up about it now .

lol..naw..you got me..you got the tater.my fault for being lazy and just posting stuff offa my head.didnt know about the paradise lost deal..thats a nice lil nugget.

gabriel has been many things in scriptures,messenger,voice and teacher(muhammhed).
the incarnation i am most fascinated with is the arch angel gabriel of the resurrection,who along with uzriel,rapheal and michael gaurd the four watchtowers.the apocryphal books have a much richer history concerning gabriel than canonized scripture ever will.
if you are interested in such things allestier crowley and don milo duquette are fascinating reads.