10 years ago if you had told me that I'd sit through a video of a robot putting pegs in a board, I think I would have laughed. And yet here I am, rewinding to watch again.

This vid is from the auditions, not the competition itself. I agree with you -- I get so mad when they throw in a reaction shot.

They don't do judge reactions during the competition.They have annoying camera choices instead.

I've never timed the talking. The first competition show has ten couples and at least one group dance in two hours. They also show the first rehearsal, as the dancers meet the choreographer. And I have a fast forward button for the true filler crap.

What can I say? This one show is my Summer Passion. I throw my doors open to all my friends to watch. We rewind the dances we love and watch them two, sometimes three times.

The show is about trust and community and respect, unlike some other competition shows I have watched two minutes of.

But if you don't have a fast forward or a rewind button or a relatively large TV screen and a room full of people cheering, and crying, well, my love for it has a support system.

*quality I had to "rewind" a couple of times to see how they did some of this.

Wild!

Back in '86, I slept over at a friends house and we stayed up late watching this movie. When we got to this part, we started rewinding the tape and replaying it over and over again, laughing our asses off.

But what we forgot was my friend's parents had a Rabbit, which was a device that allowed you to wirelessly hook up multiple TVs to one VCR in the house, and his Mom had also been watching it in the back bedroom too. After the 14th replay, she finally came out and read us the riot act.

Good times.

Re-rewind!!

Oh and the lyrics i forgot to add on...

------
You complete my fate
The world unwinds inside of me
You complete my fate
The halo crawls away
You repeat my fate
Rewinding all we can
You refill my place
You refill my place

Come and save me
Come and save me

You complete my fate
The heavens stroll inside of me
You repeat my fate
Revealing who we are
You refill my place
You refill my place

Come and save me
Come and save me

Believe in me
Drink the wine
Take my hand
Fill me up

Believe in me
Drink the wine
Take my hand
Let me follow

"No way! He did not just do that! I'd better rewind the video and check to make sure!"

I never understand the argument "if x person had a gun, it would have stopped the whole thing before it started."

In this example, the lunatic had a car and the victim had a car - so they have approximately equal "weaponry". The lunatic clearly used his weapon with utter disregard for anyone's safety and without warning. I'd like to know why people think that raising the weaponry stakes would change anything. Let's rewind the whole situation and without any hindsight give both of them a gun. Now the victim would be dead because he had no idea of the danger he was in until it happened, and if a gun was involved then that would have happened and been over very fast.

I have been accosted in my car about 4 times now (i travel to uni, it's an occupational hazard) after having to brake hard from someone's poor driving (for example). In that situation i am the one who is entitled to be aggrieved, if i had a gun then of course i wouldn't use it - because i am not going to shoot someone for driving like that and rightly so because i'd go to jail.

So the mad person is always going to shoot first, and he's always going to have the initiative of knowing what's going on and what he needs to do.

Why is escalation EVER a solution? We don't say it about nuclear warheads? Surely if everyone had a nuclear warhead we'd all be a lot safer. It might seem ridiculous to say that but why do people think it's good to upgrade the madman's potential weapon from a car to a gun!?

Heh, I guess you missed the prank. It is just a guy falling on a trampoline, and then they rewind it.

Check it again!

Thanks god no more rewinding.

*discard because @lucky760, he with the 1.75 kids, says he will rewind my dupe!!!!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets rewind:

Last presidential election, early on Hillary Clinton was considered the likely Democrat candidate. Republicans assumed (rather offensively) that anyone female would be practically guaranteed to vote for her due to some sort of "vaginal solidarity". What did they do? They pushed McCain into naming Sarah Palin as his veep, in spite of the fact that nobody really knew anything about her. The only reason for doing that was that they assumed that they would be hemorrhaging women voters, and Palin would magically solve that. How'd that work out? Not well.

So what is Mitt doing here? Failing to learn from that mistake. Mitt thought that having a gay spokesperson might make it possible for him to steal some of that demographic. He failed to remember that an election is a high school popularity contest, and you have to lock down your base before you can go for the swing vote. He stands to lose way more votes from the religious right-wing bigots that would take offense to his working with an "unclean" homosexual than the votes that he could potentially gain from moderates and liberals who are impressed with this "open minded" appointment of a gay staffer.

I would somewhat disagree with Cenk that that makes Romney the bad guy here, though. And it sounds to me like the spokesperson himself wasn't offended by being "fired"; he just realized that unfortunately his presence was going to have a negative effect on Romney's campaign. If he really did want Romney to get elected, he probably would have resigned once that became apparent -- but on the other hand if he is "fired" it can be seen as an attempt to mollify the right-wing nuts that took offense in the first place. Anyway, I'd say that the whole mess reflects much more poorly on the Republican party and the religious right wing than it does on Romney himself. At least he (sorta) tried, and showed that he is probably less of a bigot than his base...

It is a tricky issue and she's pointing out the possible loopholes. Though she stands at the opposite end of my political ring, I do recognize the possibility of concern.

It's a bit difficult to decipher what point she is making exactly because she makes her point in between sentences rather than at the beginning, but after rewinding it a few times I think I get where she stands. The main argument is that from the traditional point of view, transgenders do not qualify as a 'girl', while modern point of view says transgenders do qualify as a girl as long as the individual chooses to be so.

This new rule is solely dependent on what the individual claim him/herself to be, an intangible claim of identification. And in a traditional organization, identity based on 'claim' has little merit over straight physical evidence.

And by accepting the transgender children into the traditional scout group obviously creates confusion within its own system since the perspective of 'gender' contradicts the definition set up previously.

The report is from Pakistan and the language is Urdu
India/Pakistan, same thing almost.


It's even funnier if you know what they're saying:

-----------------
Anchorwoman:
... what do you see out there and how is the fervor amongst the youth regarding new years night?

Reporter:
The young ones are out shouting slogans whilst the police is trying to clear the street. When it was 12 o'clock people started dancing a lot of bhangra, chanted "Long live Pakistan", they even shot guns into the air, the police also baton charged the crowd, and people shot more guns into the air.... *whack!*

Achorwoman continues as if it's not a biggie: Well there you are ladies and gentlement so and so reporter informing us about people celebrating new years.
------------------

*This btw was that last report in the news that's always a 'general interest story'.


>> ^westy:

>> ^rich_magnet:
Maybe it's a language barrier, but I can't really tell what's happening in this reportage. I think I need to rewind and see it about 15 more times, in ever slower-mo. Maybe then I'll see what's going on.

Well this peace is so deep in subtext , I definitely think think its a valid commentary on the class system in India.