met·tle
/ˈmedl/

noun
a person's ability to cope well with difficulties or to face a demanding situation in a spirited and resilient way.
"the team showed their true mettle in the second half"

YOU ARE CORRECT !!

Tell him what he's won Jay!

When I was 17, my dad took me to some cliffs south of San Francisco to learn how to hang glide. The class met at a cliff to watch experienced pilots take off before going to a practice slope. The first launch we watched took off, made a smooth arcing turn, and crashed at full speed directly into the vertical cliff about 150' high and fell. He broke both legs at the least, but survived at least long enough for the ambulance to get there.

Dad cancelled my class, I never learned to fly.

I met a couple trek legends at the Star Trek Convention in Cleveland back in 1986. It was nothing like the spectacle modern conventions have become. I'm so sad we did not have cell phones with cameras back then. We stood in line just to get autographs.

It would have been hilarious if you did say "Bridge".

Idiot. He completely lost any credibility with me with the statement that "you can only solve an economic problem with economics". Really? I can think of a lot of economic problems that have been solved with chemistry, physics, and engineering - because the underlying problem is one of chemistry, physics, or engineering. When the economics dictates that it's worth investing in the chemistry, physics, or engineering to solve a problem, then that work will be done - either by private enterprise or by government sponsored research.

The problem could also be greatly solved by the using public - if they properly sorted their plastic recylcables, then there would be much less of the waste plastic - but they are too Fing lazy to do that. I would respond to the diatribe against the plastics industry with an old Pogo quote: "we have met the enemy, and he is US..."

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by BSR.

I assume he used a slug to break the antlers where they met.

No other Howard Stern guest ever talked about lusting after their teenage daughters, or violating young teenagers by forcing their way into their dressing rooms and leering at them undressing, or publicly catcalled 10 year olds on camera, or bragged about grabbing any random woman or girl by the pussy, or trying to buy sex from their friends wives while they were both married by buying them new furniture like the bitch Trump knows he is. What's your point? That incestuous pedophilia is OK if confessed to a shock jockey? Um....
Btw, it wasn't just on Howard Stern either, it was nearly everywhere he was interviewed....he couldn't even stop lusting after his daughters on the View.

Trump allowed Epstein access to maralago and his home for over a decade after Epstein pleaded guilty to pedophilia. He only banned him when Trump's employee's threatened to sue Trump for setting them up to be raped.

The last time they were together, except all those times they partied at Epstien's island, or other homes, or in public, or friends private orgies, or....well, I could go on all day. They never broke ties. Trump just had to ban him from Trump's properties for liability reasons.

Clinton and Epstein never met in person from all reports....unlike Trump who was his best friend for decades, including well after it became public knowledge Epstein was a serial pedophile rapist.

Daughter raping low T is floundering, Bobski. So is your disinformation campaign. Sad you can't come up with better.....but expected.

🤦‍♂️

Last names as a way to determine ethnic diversity, lost me there.

Cool though, that makes my sister latin american.

Too bad I am stuck with a name thats probably German in origin.

Diversity is fine. It was the tolerance of the society to entertain the notion that feeding a bunch of good for nothing intellectuals was a noble idea that made a golden age possible. Also the possibility to travel and communicate, the spread of information was helpful. Language barriers came down. That tolerance ended around 1250. Muslim lands were still ethnically diverse after that, but no more tolerance for science.

So tolerance of different ideas, customs, religions, foreigners and races seems more important than attempting to induce diversity artificially.

Tolerance naturally leads to diversity - you can see this in areas like scientific teams, hi-tech companies, or top sports teams. If you want the best people you arrive at not evaluating their race, but their abilities. That is if the society around you lets you do that.

My friends son just spent 6 months working in a chemical lab in Sweden. Met few Swedes, mostly worked with people from all over the world. So he helped with a Swedish project, he can now go back to work on his own project and he knows all these people from around the world who work on similar stuff. No one gives a damn about what ethnicity any of the people involved are or if the lab was "diverse". They all concentrate on the project. If a commision goes in and starts counting how many Laplandian scientists are filling a quota the scientists would show the (imaginary) commision their collective middle finger or just leave.

So i would argue that ethnically diverse scientific teams are not more succesful because they are diverse, they are more successful because they are open and tolerant (and that has led to their diversity).

Forcing diversity will not bring the same result.

Long? Sorry.

Dear 2020: you just met your match!

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

I went in the late 80's. Nicest people I've ever met, with Iceland a very close second.
Both made me feel depressed about how Americans act. By comparison, we are a group of uncivil toddlers.

Edit: my favorite story that exemplifies this was from a hot spring we visited with a dozen concrete pools on a hillside, one emptying into the next. Two groups of kids were playfully throwing pebbles at each other from one pool to the next when one, about 12, stood up and in the most calm voice and proper enunciated English said "Excuse me, but I would appreciate it if you would stop throwing stones.", and they all stopped. We just couldn't imagine that working with American kids, they would all target the complainer. It was quite a lesson on how civilized they are, and how far behind American manners have fallen.

Isn't it hilarious how Trump's best argument is "If you elect Biden, things could be almost as bad as they are now under me." I particularly like the one with the riots and Jack booted thugs of Trump's American nightmare claiming this could be Biden's America....BUT THAT IS TRUMP'S AMERICA YOU IJITS.

Trump didn't stand up for us against China, he stood up for Ivanka, then asked China to interfere in our election. He tossed out a trade pact for trade wars costing Americans untold billions or trillions and totally failed at trade talks.

Every other nation except Russia and Saudi Arabia want Biden over Trump, especially our allies but even most of our enemies would rather we be rational and sane than unpredictably weak and irrationally scared.

If you want to talk about family members profiting from their parent's public office, let's talk about Trump's kids @bobknight33, who actually did take gifts directly from China (not profits on investments they made, gifts) of tens of millions, one worth a reported $35 million by itself, or the hundreds of millions collected from the middle east by Jarred, or the tens of millions collected by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb from Canada and elsewhere...all based on promises made by the president to those foreign powers to scratch their back if they scratch his.

🤦‍♂️

Face it, you cannot make a single accusation on any topic deriding Biden where there isn't direct evidence of Trump being exponentially worse than his usually false accusations about Biden. Not one. *fail is right, buddy, another failed Trump attempt to smear a good man.
BTW, another court has said Trump can no longer hide his tax frauds today. Never before has so much taxpayer money been spent to hide someone's taxes, constant court cases for years using government lawyers has likely cost taxpayers near $100000000 to hide his taxes if you count the cost of the lawyers and courts, of course never before has a president refused to release them before the election, but never before has a repeatedly convicted fraud, thief, and charity con man been president.

Edit : Aaaaaaaahahahahaaa!!!! Another Trump stooge, Steve Bannon (I don't know him, never met him, I've heard good things about him but no, I don't know Steve) and multiple other administration officials including the acting head of the DEA arrested on more fraud charges, this time for defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors out of >$25000000 they donated to Trump's "build the wall" campaign. The hits never stop coming with Trump. Tired of winning yet?