>> ^campionidelmondo:
Personally, I feel that even if it's not considered a dupe in this case, it should be. This is a very specific case and apparently falls through a hole in the rules imo.
We're talking about a video of an audio song that has no visual component, so a slideshow was added to it. Alternatively it could've had a still image or an unrelated video added, but the visual component is pretty much random. It's the song that's of importance and that's being sifted.
Ok, so the slideshows could be quite different, fair enough. However, if we don't consider this a dupe, then there's nothing stopping people from looking for popular songs on here and then resifting the exact same songs, just with a different pseudo-visual component, such as a slideshow/scene from a movie/still image etc.
Of course, the added visual component could be of great quality, like setting a great song to a very fitting scene from a movie...things like that. It's a thin line that begs more discussion imo.
Stripping rasch of his dupeoff powers seems a bit much. Especially, like burdturgler pointed out, given how much effort he puts into maintaining the videos.


I think it should not. I would rather that the votes too care of those cases, because they are not duplicates, even if the songs are the same. I don't think we should analyze "what the video is about" so we can figure out if its a dupe or not - it should be relatively simple and if there are doubts, then I'd rather discuss it than throw another version out. If we've all seen a great version of X song with an unofficial music video, would the official music video be a dupe? Not at all, and it should not be that other way either - it's a whole package. The only grey area there is, is when the differences are trivial. That's my opinion anyway.

In any case, in spite of the enmity towards rasch from me, I still respect his tireless effort in dead fixes and dupeofs, with that many of them anyone can make a mistake. I would think it's just a slap on the wrist; there's no reason to cut off a working limb, so to speak.

Back in Israel in 1995, there was a lot of controversy and debate surrounding the Oslo Accords, which were a big step forward in the peace process at the time.
At some point, one of the far-right groups made a poster of Yitzhak Rabin in a SS officer uniform and it quickly became their "unofficial" position and made it "OK" for anyone listening to them, to kill him.

On November 4th 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing religious extremist who honestly believed, and still believes, that he was saving the country in the process.

I guess my point is... It's not harmless debate. It's not harmless to demonize and make it OK for your followers to believe killing the opponent will solve all your problems. Calling him Hitler does just that.

Wake up and smell the hate speech.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I thought to be an OFFICIAL douche you needed at least one popped collar.


He could be an unofficial douche. Or an aspiring douche.

>> ^EDD:
So.. still got nothing on me, bitch?


Suck racist westy dick you fucking troll. I tried to add you to the rant above, but then I realized I truly hated you, and that made me feel bad. Anyone who would make an 'unofficial' VideoSift last.fm page is got to be the most miserable douchebag I've ever met.

And you're also a condescending fucker. And you've got a man-crush on KP and demonstrated that to us not once but twice. And you're not loyal to those who are fighting in your corner. Should I continue?

Every time I see your username I feel like you're shouting at me. Seriously, is that enough or should I continue?

I used to work with literally the stupidest human being on planet earth, and he used to read all of david icke's books. He would then talk at length to me about them, explaining that he had a lot of very interesting things to say.

He was a bit like karl pilkington, only much more aggressive in his views. He'd regularly tell me about the latest book he'd read such as people who survive without eating. I'd say well that's not possible - i accept there's 0.00001% chance of me being wrong, but the odds are in my favour and i have leeway to say "that's impossible".

He'd say "HAHAHAHA see man you're so ignorant. You read books about physics and you believe all of that but there's no proof, it could all just be made up. You learn physics but how do you know any of it is true?"

I explained to him a) i can perform experiments and then calculations based on experiments to prove things, then further calculations, and so on. Eventually i'd need special equipment to observe the proof, and i trust that these highly qualified experts (hundreds of thousands of them) are not all in a joint conspiracy to lie to me about physics.

And he, of course, says "But this guy who can survive without food using only the sun as energy, he's a professor!" - when i looked him up, he had gotten dodgy qualifications from some unofficial 'university' (you know, called something like the calcutta university of life and chi). But i didn't know that at the time so i said, ok, but it's hardly verified by a massive collection of people is it? To which he'd reply "Oh so if enough people believe it then it's true is it?"

Literally every single factual and sensible thing i said, he'd have the world's stupidest counter-argument which ALMOST made sense every single time.

God damn he was annoying to work with.

Hey Rasch. I can always count on you for my Joe Strummer fix.

Speaking of Tymon Dogg, my cover of "Lose This Skin" from Sandinista is featured on Tymon Dogg's unofficial fanpage. It's in the News/Updates section under Feb 9, 2009.

http://www.tymondogg.net/gpage.html

That shape that is made when the drop hits the water in "Unofficially" called a Hypokiss (pronounced Hip-o-kiss). My friends and I made that name up 33 years ago and have called it that ever since!

kids kids kids..
no need to argue,
their is plenty of crapola for everyone.
so play nice and share-fair.
you both are actually agreeing,
yet caught up in semantics...BLAAAAH.
thats boring.

i have stated this on a different thread,
second times the charm.
maybe i can help put some perspective and context here.
/rubs hands together..
/takes a big breath...
ok.......go!
the number one lobbyist in america is NOT..
big oil..
big pharma..
nor the health insurance industry.
its it.../drum roll
MEDIA MEDIA MEDIA
broadcast,print and televised.
they spend THREE times what the number two lobbyist spend (big oil)
in order to influence legislators to vote on favorable legislation
A.K.A MONEY,the green,cash,profits
now,
up until the mid 70's television news was NON-profit.
it was a badge of honor to be the most trusted news in television.
that changed in late 70's.
news become FOR-profit.
which meant they now had to start generating revenue.
ever wonder why we were subjected to an almost 24hr barrage of anna nicole?
because we live in a country of semi-retards who wanted to see anna nicole.
stupid?
yes..
ratings go up?
sometimes as much as 47%.
in 1993 michael powell(yes..he is colin's son) head of the FCC at the time,
allowed single ownership of multi-outlet media companies.
and so america gave birth to the mighty media conglomerate:
disney..viacom..and yes..mr murdoch's FOX.
leaving america with only 5 owners for its media.
/takes a breath...
ok,now that i have posted SOME relevant history.
lets take a look at what this means.
lets get some context here.
we have three branches of government:
executive,judicial and legislative.
but we also have an unofficial fourth.
its called the fourth estate.
freedom of the press anybody?
who would like some extra credit and tell me which federalist paper addressed this very issue?worth 100 pts.
the fourth estates job was to WATCH the elected and the powerful.
basically rat out any wrong-doing in public office.
and for almost 200 years,this system worked relatively well.
but when an institution relies on the very people it was designed to expose
for its very financial existence.
how willing would that institution be to expose...anything?
to risk losing access,beneficial legislation,maybe even their well-crafted monopoly.
answer=they wont and they dont.
they will not risk profit for journalistic truth.
they cant.it is in every corporate charter,profit comes before all else.
the losers are the public at large.
who have to "sift" through the massive amount of jargon,half stories and outright bullshit,to get to any modecum of context.
the american media no longer works for the public trust.
they work for those who pay their bills,and give sweetheart deals,so they can retain access and keep the cash flowing.


whew...
/wipes brow
so,
while some media companies are more egregious in their attempts to obfuscate
than others (FOX),
all have their hands in the cookie jar,
and all of them no longer work for us.
rougy=correct
mashiki=correct

I like my macbook. It has some problems... as it was the first generation... specifically the place where the lid make contact with the keyboard has cracked. I waited a while though and now Mac is unofficially repairing this problem.

"Is Israel not simply a response to outright hostile actions purported by the States of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon?"

The short answer is, no. Israel is a classic settler nation with all the existential attributes and brutality of a colonial ruler.

Sometimes an article deserves reprinting in full.

(copyfree)

Date : 2004-01-29
''Diagnosing Benny Morris: the mind of a European settler''

By Gabriel Ash - YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

Israeli historian Benny Morris crossed a new line of shame when he put his academic credentials and respectability in the service of outlining the "moral" justification for a future genocide against Palestinians.

Benny Morris is the Israeli historian most responsible for the vindication of the Palestinian narrative of 1948. The lives of about 700,000 people were shattered as they were driven from their homes by the Jewish militia (and, later, the Israeli army) between December 1947 and early 1950. Morris went through Israeli archives and wrote the day by day account of this expulsion, documenting every "ethnically cleansed" village and every recorded act of violence, and placing each in the context of the military goals and perceptions of the cleansers.

Israel's apologists tried in vain to attack Morris' professional credibility. From the opposite direction, since he maintained that the expulsion was not "by design," he was also accused of drawing excessively narrow conclusions from the documents and of being too naive a reader of dissimulating statements. Despite these limitations, Morris' "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugees Problem, 1947-1949" is an authoritative record of the expulsion.

In anticipation of the publication of the revised edition, Morris was interviewed in Haaretz - ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html,
Hebrew original at
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/objects/pages/PrintArticle.jhtml?itemNo=380119). The major new findings in the revised book, based on fresh documents, further darken the picture.

The new archival material, Morris reveals, records routine execution of civilians, twenty-four massacres, including one in Jaffa, and at least twelve cases of rape by military units, which Morris acknowledges are probably "the tip of the iceberg." Morris also says he found documents confirming the broader conclusions favored by his critics: the expulsion was pre-meditated; concrete expulsion orders were given in writing, some traceable directly to Ben Gurion.

Morris also found documentations for Arab High Command calls for evacuating women and children from certain villages, evidence he oddly claims strengthen the Zionist propaganda claim that Palestinians left because they were told to leave by the invading Arab states. Morris had already documented two dozen such cases in the first edition. It is hard to see how attempts by Arab commanders to protect civilians from anticipated rape and murder strengthen the Zionist fairy tale. But that failed attempt at evenhandedness is the least of Morris' problems. As the interview progresses, it emerges with growing clarity that, while Morris the historian is a professional and cautious presenter of facts, Morris the intellectual is a very sick person.

His sickness is of the mental-political kind. He lives in a world populated not by fellow human beings, but by racist abstractions and stereotypes. There is an over-abundance of quasi-poetic images in the interview, as if the mind is haunted by the task of grasping what ails it: "The Palestinian citizens of Israel are a time bomb," not fellow citizens. Islam is "a world in which human lives don't have the same value as in the West." Arabs are "barbarians" at the gate of the Roman Empire. Palestinian society is "a serial killer" that ought to be executed, and "a wild animal" that must be caged.

Morris' disease was diagnosed over forty years ago, by Frantz Fanon. Based on his experience in subjugated Africa, Fanon observed that "the colonial world is a Manichean world. It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say, with the help of the army and the police, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation, the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil … The native is declared insensitive to ethics … the enemy of values. … He is a corrosive element, destroying all that comes near it … the unconscious and irretrievable instrument of blind forces" (from "The Wretched of the Earth"). And further down, "the terms the settler uses when he mentions the native are zoological terms" (let's not forget to place Morris' metaphors in the context of so many other Israeli appellations for Palestinians: Begin's "two-legged beasts", Eitan's "drugged cockroaches" and Barak's ultra-delicate "salmon"). Morris is a case history in the psychopathology of colonialism.

Bad Genocide, Good Genocide

When the settler encounters natives who refuse to cast down their eyes, his disease advances to the next stage -- murderous sociopathy.

Morris, who knows the exact scale of the terror unleashed against Palestinians in 1948, considers it justified. First he suggests that the terror was justified because the alternative would have been a genocide of Jews by Palestinians. Raising the idea of genocide in this context is pure, and cheap, hysteria. Indeed, Morris moves immediately to a more plausible explanation: the expulsion was a precondition for creating a Jewish state, i.e. the establishment of a specific political preference, not self-defense.

This political explanation, namely that the expulsion was necessary to create the demographic conditions, a large Jewish majority, favored by the Zionist leadership, is the consensus of historians. But as affirmative defense, it is unsatisfactory. So the idea that Jews were in danger of genocide is repeated later, in a more honest way, as merely another racist, baseless generalization: "if it can, [Islamic society] will commit genocide."

But Morris sees no evil. Accusing Ben Gurion of failing to achieve an "Arabenrein Palestine," he recommends further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens. Not now, but soon, "within five or ten years," under "apocalyptic conditions" such as a regional war with unconventional weapons, a potentially nuclear war, which "is likely to happen within twenty years." For Morris, and it is difficult to overstate his madness at this point, the likelihood of a nuclear war within the foreseeable future is not the sorry end of a road better not taken, but merely a milestone, whose aftermath is still imaginable, and imaginable within the banal continuity of Zionist centennial policies: he foresees the exchange of unconventional missiles between Israel and unidentified regional states as a legitimate excuse for "finishing the job" of 1948.

Morris speaks explicitly of another expulsion, but, in groping for a moral apology for the past and the future expulsion of Palestinians, he presents a more general argument, one that justifies not only expulsion but also genocide. That statement ought to be repeated, for here is a crossing of a terrible and shameful line.

Morris, a respectable, Jewish, Israeli academic, is out in print in the respectable daily, Haaretz, justifying genocide as a legitimate tool of statecraft. It should be shocking. Yet anybody who interacts with American and Israeli Zionists knows that Morris is merely saying for the record what many think and even say unofficially. Morris, like most of Israel, lives in a temporality apart, an intellectual Galapagos Islands, a political Jurassic Park, where bizarre cousins of ideas elsewhere shamed into extinction still roam the mindscape proudly.

Nor should one think the slippage between expulsion, "transfer," and genocide without practical consequences. It is not difficult to imagine a planned expulsion turn into genocide under the stress of circumstances: The genocides of both European Jews and Armenians began as an expulsion. The expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 was the product of decades of thinking and imagining "transfer." We ought to pay attention: with Morris's statement, Zionist thinking crossed another threshold; what is now discussed has the potential to be actualized, if "apocalyptic conditions" materialize.

The march of civilization and the corpses of the uncivilized

It is instructive to look closer at the manner in which Morris uses racist thinking to justify genocide. Morris' interview, precisely because of its shamelessness, is a particularly good introductory text to Zionist thought.

Morris' racism isn't limited to Arabs. Genocide, according to Morris, is justified as long as it is done for "the final good." But what kind of good is worth the "forced extinction" of a whole people? Certainly, not the good of the latter. (Morris uses the word "Haqkhada," a Hebrew word usually associated with the extinction of animal species. Someone ought to inform Morris about the fact that Native Americans aren't extinct.)

According to Morris, the establishment of a more advanced society justifies genocide: "Yes, even the great American democracy couldn't come to be without the forced extinction of Native Americans. There are times the overall, final good justifies terrible, cruel deeds." Such hopeful comparisons between the future awaiting Palestinians and the fate of Native Americans are common to Israeli apologists. One delegation of American students was shocked and disgusted when it heard this analogy made by a spokesperson at the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Morris's supremacist view of "Western Civilization," that civilization values human life more than Islam, has its basis in the moral acceptance of genocide for the sake of "progress." Morris establishes the superiority of the West on both the universal respect for human life and the readiness to exterminate inferior races. The illogicalness of the cohabitation of a right to commit genocide together with a higher level of respect for human lives escapes him, and baffles us, at least until we grasp that the full weight of the concept of "human" is restricted, in the classic manner of Eurocentric racism, to dwellers of civilized (i.e. Western) nations.

This is the same logic that allowed early Zionists to describe Palestine as an empty land, despite the presence of a million inhabitants. In the end, it comes down to this: killing Arabs -- one dozen Arabs or one million Arabs, the difference is merely technical -- is acceptable if it is necessary in order to defend the political preferences of Jews because Jews belong to the superior West and Arabs are inferior. We must be thankful to Professor Morris for clarifying the core logic of Zionism so well.

The color of Jews

Morris assures us that his values are those of the civilized West, the values of universal morality, progress, etc. But then he also claims to hold the primacy of particular loyalties, a position for which he draws on Albert Camus. But to reconcile Morris' double loyalty to both Western universalism and to Jewish particularism, one must forget that these two identities were not always on the best of terms.

How can one explain Morris' knowledge that the ethnic Darwinism that was used to justify the murder of millions of non-whites, including Black African slaves, Native Americans, Arabs, and others, was also used to justify the attempt to exterminate Jews? How can Morris endorse the "civilizational" justification of genocide, which includes the genocide of Jews, even as he claims the holocaust as another justification for Zionism? Perhaps Morris' disjointed mind doesn't see the connection. Perhaps he thinks that there are "right" assertions of racist supremacy and "wrong" assertions of racist supremacy. Or perhaps Morris displays another facet of the psychopathologies of oppression, the victim's identification with the oppressor.

Perhaps in Morris' mind, one half tribalist and one half universalist, the Jews were murdered to make way for a superior, more purely Aryan, European civilization, and the Jews who are today serving in the Israeli army, both belong and do not belong to the same group. They belong when Morris invokes the totems of the tribe to justify loyalty. But when his attention turns to the universal principle of "superior civilization," these Jews are effaced, like poor relations one is ashamed to be associated with, sent back to the limbo they share with the great non-white mass of the dehumanized. In contrast, the Jews of Israel, self-identified as European, have turned white, dry-cleaned and bleached by Zionism, and with their whiteness they claim the privilege that Whites always had, the privilege to massacre members of "less advanced" races.

False testimony

It would be marvelous if Morris the historian could preserve his objective detachment while Morris the Zionist dances with the demons of Eurocentric racism. But the wall of professionalism -- and it is a very thick and impressive wall in Morris' case -- cannot hold against the torrent of hate.

For example, Morris lies about his understanding of the 2000 Camp David summit. In Haaretz, Morris says that, "when the Palestinians rejected Barak's proposal of July 2000 and Clinton's proposal of December 2000, I understood that they were not ready to accept a two state solution. They wanted everything. Lydda, and Akka and Jaffa."

But in his book "Righteous Victims," Morris explains the failure of the negotiations thus: "the PLO leadership had gradually accepted, or seemed to…Israel...keeping 78 percent of historical Palestine. But the PLO wanted the remaining 22 percent. … At Camp David, Barak had endorsed the establishment of a Palestinian state…[on only] 84-90 percent of that 22 percent. … Israel was also to control the territory between a greatly enlarged Jerusalem and Jericho, effectively cutting the core of the future Palestinian state into two…" Morris' chapter of "Righteous Victims" that deals with the '90s leaves a lot to be desired, but it still strives for some detached analysis. In contrast, in Haaretz Morris offers baseless claims he knows to be false.

If Morris lies about recent history, and even grossly misrepresents the danger Jews faced in Palestine in 1948, a period he is an expert on, his treatment of more general historical matters is all but ridiculous, an astounding mix of insinuations and cliches. For example, Morris reminds us that "the Arab nation won a big chunk of the Earth, not because of its intrinsic virtues and skills, but by conquering and murdering and forcing the conquered to convert." (What is Morris' point? Is the cleansing of Palestine attributable to Jewish virtues and skills, rather than to conquering and murdering?)

This is racist slander, not history. As an example, take Spain, which was conquered in essentially one battle in 711 A.D. by a band of North African Berbers who had just converted to Islam. Spain was completely Islamized and Arabized within two centuries with very little religious coercion, and certainly no ethnic cleansing. But after the last Islamic rulers were kicked out of Spain by the Christian army of Ferdinand and Isabel in 1492, a large section of the very same Spanish population that willingly adopted Islam centuries earlier refused to accept Christianity despite a century of persecution by the Spanish Inquisition. 600,000 Spanish Muslims were eventually expelled in 1608.

Obviously, Islamic civilization had its share of war and violence. But, as the above example hints, compared to the West, compared to the religious killing frenzy of sixteenth century Europe, compared to the serial genocides in Africa and America, and finally to the flesh-churning wars of the twentieth century, Islamic civilization looks positively benign. So why all this hatred? Where is all this fire and brimstone Islamophobia coming from?

Being elsewhere

From Europe, of course, but with a twist. Europe has always looked upon the East with condescension. In periods of tension, that condescension would escalate to fear and hate. But it was also mixed and tempered with a large dose of fascination and curiosity. The settler, however, does not have the luxury to be curious. The settler leaves the metropolis hoping to overcome his own marginal, often oppressed, status in metropolitan society. He goes to the colony motivated by the desire to recreate the metropolis with himself at the top.

For the settler, going to the colony is not a rejection of the metropolis, but a way to claim his due as a member. Therefore, the settler is always trying to be more metropolitan than the metropolis. When the people of the metropolis baulk at the bloodbath the settler wants to usher in the name of their values, the settler accuses them of "growing soft," and declares himself "the true metropolis." That is also why there is one crime of which the settler can never forgive the land he colonized -- its alien climate and geography, its recalcitrant otherness, the oddness of its inhabitants, in sum, the harsh truth of its being elsewhere. In the consciousness of the settler, condescension thus turns into loathing.

Israeli settler society, especially its European, Ashkenazi part, especially that Israel which calls itself "the peace camp," "the Zionist Left," etc., is predicated on the loathing of all things Eastern and Arab. (Now, of course, there is the religious, post-1967 settlers who relate to the Zionist Left the way the Zionist Left stands in relation to Europe, i.e. as settlers.) "Arab" is a term of abuse, one that can be applied to everything and everyone, including Jews. This loathing is a unifying theme. It connects Morris' latest interview in Haaretz with Ben Gurion's first impression of Jaffa in 1905; he found it filthy and depressing.

In another article, published in Tikkun Magazine, Morris blames the "ultra-nationalism, provincialism, fundamentalism and obscurantism" of Arab Jews in Israel for the sorry state of the country (although Begin, Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, and most of Israel's generals, leaders, and opinion makers of the last two decades are European Jews). For Morris, everything Eastern is corrupt and every corruption has an Eastern origin.

One shouldn't, therefore, doubt Morris when he proclaims himself a traditional Left Zionist. Most of what he says hasn't been said already by David Ben Gurion or Moshe Dayan. Loathing of the East and the decision to subdue it by unlimited force is the essence of Zionism.

Understanding the psycho-political sources of this loathing leads to some interesting observations about truisms that recur in Morris' (and much of Israel's) discourse. Morris blames Arafat for thinking that Israel is a "crusader state," a foreign element that will eventually be sent back to its port of departure. This is a common refrain of Israeli propaganda. It is also probably true. But it isn't Arafat's fault that Morris is a foreigner in the Middle East. Why shouldn't Arafat believe Israel is a crusader state when Morris himself says so? "We are the vulnerable extension of Europe in this place, exactly as the crusaders."

It is Morris -- like the greater part of Israel's elite -- who insists on being a foreigner, on loathing the Middle East and dreaming about mist-covered Europe, purified and deified by distance. If Israel is a crusader state, and therefore a state with shallow roots, likely to pack up and disappear, it is not the fault of those who make that observation. It is the fault of those Israelis, like Morris, who want to rule the Middle East from behind tall walls and barbed wire.

Morris is deeply pessimistic about Israel's future; this feeling is very attractive in Israel. The end of Israel is always felt to be one step away, hiding beneath every development, from the birthrate of Bedouins to the establishment of the International Court of Justice.

Naturally, every Palestinian demand is such a doomsday threat. This sense of existential precariousness can be traced back to 1948; it was encouraged by Israel's successive governments because it justified the continuous violence of the state and the hegemony of the military complex. It may eventually become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

But this existential fear goes deeper. It is rooted in the repressed understanding (which Morris both articulates and tries to displace) of the inherent illegitimacy of the Israeli political system and identity. "Israel" is brute force. In Morris' words: "The bottom line is that force is the only thing that will make them accept us." But brute force is precarious. Time gnaws at it. Fatigue corrodes it. And the more it is used, the more it destroys the very acceptance and legitimacy it seeks.

For Israel, the fundamental question of the future is, therefore, whether Israelis can transcend colonialism. The prognosis is far from positive. In a related article in The Guardian, Morris explains that accepting the right of return of the Palestinian refugees would mean forcing Israeli Jews into exile. But why would Jews have to leave Israel if Israel becomes a bi-national, democratic state? One cannot understand this without attention to the colonial loathing of the Middle East which Morris so eloquently expresses.

But taking that into account, I'm afraid Morris is right. Many Israeli Jews, especially European Jews who tend to possess alternative passports, would rather emigrate than live on equal terms with Palestine's natives in a bi-national state. It is to Frantz Fanon again that we turn for observing this first. "The settler, from the moment the colonial context disappears, has no longer an interest in remaining or in co-existing."

Gabriel Ash was born in Romania and grew up in Israel.

around 2:59 and on is the "new unofficial" vid. Everything prior was in the old game. Still love booting that game up every now and then

>> ^Deano:
So is it straight to work or is Clinton laying on a reception with lots of coke and booze?


10 balls officially, hundreds of more unofficially...

I was wondering who would be the first person to use the term "self link" in this post. I imagined that maybe it could/would intentionally go unmentioned. Alas, I was wrong.

It actually is a self-link according to our FAQ, but I think in this case we'll make an executive decision and say it's permissible under the circumstances (not just because it's a SiftUp but esp. because she is a bit player without a speaking roll and is not the writer/director/camerawoman/etc. and will not benefit from the proliferation of the video).

If anyone else would like to argue against this post, officially, I say take it up with SiftBot. Unofficially, I'll stick my fingers in my ears and say LALALALALALALAA.

Thanks! You are quite right.

In reply to this comment by Deano:
Foals are pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMuD3DBskpg

In reply to this comment by sharkie:
I just found these guys recently...good stuff. If anyone can recommend more like this, I'd love to hear.

Foals are pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMuD3DBskpg

In reply to this comment by sharkie:
I just found these guys recently...good stuff. If anyone can recommend more like this, I'd love to hear.