I already answered that clearly, but here it is again since you apparently didn't read it....

I find this so inappropriate.
The moderator made a ruling that didn't go your way.
Now you threaten to make the moderator's life hell as a moderator because of it.
Please stop.

I find your threats to flood @lucky760 with requests for rulings on any video you can find with any death, (apparently including videos already ruled on, and others such as weather events where death is not evident in the video and war reports where death is not evident in the video (or is at best dots before the explosion, not clearly people), all because you're pissed off that he ruled against your blatant snuff video,) both inappropriate and insulting to the entire sift community, and totally personally insulting and threatening to lucky. EDIT: on top of being nothing more than sour grapes, clearly, since you have no issue with posting a snuff video but now feel a pathological need to root them out from years back, not because they bother you but because YOURS was removed. While there's nothing wrong with calling snuff "snuff", your reasons for doing so at this point and in the method you have chosen are, to be more than generous, somewhat suspect.

Because this action was prompted by my tagging your video as *snuff (and having him make a ruling), it seemed totally appropriate for me to vote on your comment/actions.
You may note you've made numerous comments I did not vote on at all at the same time as the one's I downvoted because you were intentionally insulting or threatening.
And now you backhandedly threaten to try to get me banned for (properly) downvoting your insulting and threatening public comments?

...just quit it....please.

I can't help but feel a bit ambivalent towards her "problem".

She has a hell of a lot of advantages (seems intelligent, good looking, fit etc), but she wants to be part of the industry that reinforces that women should be toothpicks to hang clothes off. Her bmi is already low, and she knows it, so making the changes the industry wants are, at a guess, simply impossible without seriously compromising her health. She's tried to be the coathanger and failed and now it's sour grapes over the industry and how ridiculous it is... \= |

And it wasn't ridiculous before she decided she wanted to be a model? This isn't a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.

She get's the sympathy around here because she's very attractive and scantily clad (you could probably mute the clip and it would still end up in the top 15). But this is solidly in the "first world problems" zone.

How so?

She's not debunking his archery "style", she's debunking his assertions that he's the only guy to rediscover it, that his style was widespread etc.

At multiple points, she says that archery is about what works, so she's not denying him his right to shoot however he wants to, but she's bang on about a lot of the things he does.

Doesn't sound like sour grapes to me, just a reasoned analysis.

I particularly agree with the bits about his demos of 'failed' techniques being like watching morons in an infomercial fall to pieces because they can't put a blanket over their legs and use a phone. If something is flawed, you shouldn't need to exaggerate to show flaw, it should be self evident.

I don't know. Her "debunking" itself is pretty weak. Seems more like sour grapes than real critique.

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.

Actually you said it's no where near time to panic. You also said the people of Kiribati are going to be washed away by a tsunami (but it never happened before in all the times they've been hit by tsunami) and not overwhelmed by sea rise (which IS what's happened to them).


You are just wrong about Texas producing more than California, we're number two in cattle production and ....
Food Facts
California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.
California is the nation's number one dairy state.
California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.
California's leading export crop is almonds.
Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation's leading producer of strawberries, averaging 1.4 billion pounds of strawberries or 83% of the country's total fresh and frozen strawberry production. Approximately 12% of the crop is exported to Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Japan primarily. The value of the California strawberry crop is approximately $700 million with related employment of more than 48,000 people.
California produces 25% of the nation's onions and 43% of the nation's green onions.
and if that's not enough to convince you ...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2182/what-percent-of-food-comes-from-california

It is never 1 to 1 guns VS farmers in the situations you are talking about. The food gets stolen, sold, and eaten. It is not stolen and allowed to rot. If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.

I call BS, the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today. You mentioned one. They are universally agreed on (by energy companies) who have made solar farms, nuclear, wind, etc.

Ahhhh. So now you see why it's time to panic...adaptation of the tech takes time, time that we don't have to waste. If it takes 50 years to stop adding greenhouse gasses, we need to see where that leaves your children's children. Adaptation of new tech is going to happen while we are restricting consumption...it's been that way for decades (see 'car mileage requirements') so it HAS happened in the past, and is happening today...without wars.

If no one panics and no one acts, that's where we'll be if we're lucky. Those figures you linked assume we will stop rising the level of CO2 we add daily and/or keep it below a certain level...an assumption I think is wrong and ignores reality.

Um, well, yeah, 78% less glacier doesn't mean 78% less runoff, it means far more than 78% less, because of glacial dams, evaporation, and upstream use it means probably NO runoff downstream. 22% of the already scarce water won't feed India. Period.
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years, but even those numbers leave billions without water or food. That's far worse than any group ever starved by 'men with guns'.

Do you hear yourself? " If I disagree with something a BLACK person does, how come I'm a racist"

Maybe because you keep referring to them as black as a negative.

Maybe they're just people and not black people. You say we're playing the race card, but we're not the one making sweeping generalizations about how the looters were young black males, you did that.

Not to mention the desperate need by you to conflate the shooting and the looting as a single event. The shooting and the looting are two separate events, sure one is happening because of the other but they are still separate events. The inference by the racists is that apparently only black people loot and never other people and we know this to not be true.

You're picking and choosing which evidence you believe to be reliable and if what you claim is true and you're a cop so you're anything but unbiased. Hell even Bob of all people admitted that not all the facts are in and that some of the evidence doesn't look favorable for the shooter. If even Bob can admit it, why can't you? Because you're biased that's why. It's standard "I want it to be true, therefore it is true" mentality.

All the "leftists" (another term used with negative connotations) are saying is that racism exists and is still alive and well. Even if this shooting turns out to not be racially motivated. It still highlights the underlying problem. People don't trust cops and as you are so fond of saying, that trust and respect has to be earned, not mandated. I know you wouldn't begrudge the population taking possibly violent measures against an organization that is perceived to be tyrannical, now would you. Because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite and we wouldn't want that now would we.

But hey, don't take my word for it, just keep hurling insults and sweeping generalizations when people don't agree with you and you get mad and go into sour grapes mode and change your argument and use other distractions. It's worked out for you so well so far.

Although in more recent years, there have actually been laws passed to prohibit the name "Champagne" to only wines that are produced in the Champagne region of France, There are still other wines that call themselves Champagnes, typically Sparkling wine.

There have been laws passed in both Canada and the U.s.a., however if you were calling your wine "Champagne" pre-2006, you're still allowed to do so, however the region that the grapes were grown for the wine MUST be included on the label.

Dick.

Your video, Louis CK - Breasts and Grapes of Wrath, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@chingalera...again for the cheap seat....(rare wall of words of my own, feel special?)

chicchorea said:

"Confusedly talking to yourself...again, or lying to yourself...again.

...took me about five minutes here on the Sift, on Google, and HC District Clerk online to prove it out.

Where would you like me to post the six steps to your...here or your Profile Pages of Shame, under which alias', aka sockpuppets, banned pseudonommes?"


"little...thing," going to leave another of these unanswered? Or perhaps you were just going to promote this again,...or shall I for you?

...or are you going to slink to a weeks old closed one and leave some feeble bleet in the dark...again?

...or pick another to take a cheap shot. For someone who doesn't like banning you did enough...even without justification but your felon's excuse for blatant discrimination against attorneys. Was some DA mean to you? Awwwww.

You had to keep poking. Seeking me out as another foil for your own self loathing. Someone else with whom to feign some pitiful involvement in another of a long tenured list of vain attempts to feel some self worth at the expense of someone else and deriving what empty little you could eke because few to none others would stoop or squat to your level.

So now, pitiful "little...thing",...put up or shut up and I will do the same. Except, in my case, I have everything I need to back up my assertions, felon, bitter grapes banner, etc. And where did I get it all? I got it from you,...your dribbling trail of filth you leave behind you here and everywhere else.

...that enough attention for you? Or are you feeling hollow now?

I'm not crushing leaves for no monkey unless I get a grape or something good in return.

I didn't know cats liked grapes.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The same reaction that monkeys have when they know they can have something better
http://videosift.com/video/Monkey-wants-grapes-throws-tantrum-Fairness-experiment