@G-bar - You've been advised/warned by multiple members and you're seemingly acting blissfully unaware that you're about to be banned for intentionally violating the posting guidelines. Continued inaction after a reasonable time will result in at least a temporary ban.

You're a very long time member, so this is all very surprising and also the only reason you haven't already been banned.

Ok, so I installed the Mediahint thing to avoid blocking problems, but this is still *blocked. Can anyone advise?

I despise the whole concept of s****** (I can't even type the word). There was a time when you would have been ridiculed for taking so many pictures of yourself. Or been advised to seek professional help. Just as bad as seeing people's washed-out bloated faces doing their webcam monologues. If only iPhones would shoot pepper spray when they detected a s*****.

"Some of you may be offended by the sexual content in this video...viewer discretion is advised."

Who gives a damn if anyone's offended?

You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades.

Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda. There are legitimate grievances that we could address and it would basically destroy Al Qaedas support, but we don't because it's counter to what the people with the money want us to do.

Eisenhower asked the same question to his advisers in the 1950s, something like "Why is their a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East." His advisers came back with the facts, they don't like us because we support horrible dictators that keep a boot to their neck constantly. The continued that it's correct, we should be doing this in order to control them.

There's facts but you can't talk about them much, people get really upset and call you a traitor. Like in this very comment section. Whatever the US does it's correct regardless of intention or outcome, Patriotism is stupid.

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

How about "What's your ethnic background?"

Few people have a problem with this discussion, but I'd still advise against opening with it.

This may run long, so bear with me.

Law Enforcement employees tend to come from two specific groups of people. The first group is going to consist of people who actually joined up to try to protect people and make things safer for them. They are idealists who may grow jaded over time; because realistically if your only input on what being a LEO is the internet and reality TV, you are not prepared for the type of mental assault you will endure day in and day out. I'm not talking about angry people, but stuff like drawing circles around little chunks of brains on the highway from a teenage girl that went through a windshield.

As an officer at any level (except maybe a small town), you are going to see the absolute worst side of humanity on a daily basis and you aren't on a tour of duty like the military. You don't get to 'rotate' home and put it behind you. This will wear on anybody who is not a sociopath, it will grind you down to a nub. You could see professional help for this, but I will go into that later.

The second type of person who goes into law enforcement is someone who likes authority, a sense of power over someone else, a bully. This person is in the job because it gives them power over others and the law will protect them because it is vaguely worded in SO many cases. This person will shrug off the effects that cripple the first type over time, because they feel in charge of every situation. After a while, if they don't tone it down, they will get caught. Thankfully the cell camera and the internet tends to be helping clean them out due to their own incapability to see they can't ALWAYS be in charge, but it will be a long road because this group is the BULK of the ones that join LE organizations.

Now why do these two groups tend to be the ones that you are going to run into on a consistent basis? The simple, hard answer is that we pay our front line LEO's very little compared to other services that risk their life or experience the mental grind. Your average patrol officer is going to pull a median salary of about 35k with comparable benefits to someone working in a office job. A firefighter is going to pull around 45k and scales up much quicker, not to mention their benefits are beyond good. EMT's make about the same as patrol officers, but their benefits are also very good and they don't have the same stressors. I know that ranges will vary and State LEO's are very well paid on average, but we are talking about the people you are going to encounter most often.

If you have to choose between a job where you are going to be considered a 'hero' or a job where everyone is going to be biased towards you being a 'villain, and the hero jobs pay better, which would you logically choose? Assuming of course that you are not sorted into one of the two groups I described, most are going to run away from serving in LE. In fact, this is why more of the 'bullies' tend towards LE and the 'idealists' don't. So you already have created a situation where the 'stormtrooper' mindset is going to prefer this job and haven't considered options to rectify it. The people you don't run into that much are going to be the people that took college and got pushed through the ranks quickly. If you didn't take college or just took an Associates Degree, you have to beat these people out. It is extremely hard to do that, even if you do your job much better than they did.

The final factor that runs into this is the mental issues I mentioned earlier. If you seek help from your employers for mental stress, they are going to handle it differently if you are a LEO. You are going to find out quickly that you are expendable. If you seek help and get classified as PTSD, you set a chain of events in motion that is inexorable. You will be rotated to a desk. You will see a Psychiatrist who will prescribe anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication. This person will meet with you for around 15 minutes 3-4 times a week, ask you questions, and ask if the medication is helping. If you return to functional status in a month or two, you get put back on duty. If you don't, they put you on short term disability for up to one year. Your visits drop to once a week, then once a month. One year later, your employment is terminated. They hire a new recruit and start the cycle again about the same time that you start your short term disability. You get to try to salvage your career in anyway possible, hopefully you paid through the nose for long term disability, or you can try to find a smaller department that doesn't bother to dig too deep on background checks.

Other related fields like firefighters/emts comprehend PTSD and work with their people much harder. They have better benefits so you they can see outside therapists as much as needed. There is less stigma if you have a problem, because they understand. You go on the fritz as an LEO and you will overhear people who used to respect you call you weak or a pussy. Sadly this type of thing happens at all levels of LE, even as a State Trooper you are expendable.

In any case, the point to this essay is that the system is flawed and is going to drive out the good LEOs and save the bad ones to protect itself from litigation. Protect yourself at all times with video, be advised of the laws and loopholes in them that bad LEos will exploit, and don't force confrontation with a LEO if there is a loophole. If the man had stepped outside and talked calmly, the incident would not have escalated as it did. In this case he did not inform himself of the loopholes correctly and got tasered (which was improper, they didn't warn him correctly or anything), and the LEOs look like villains again.

F REA K S H o W

Ok can we trust these factoids?

Letter mountain: Who commisioned it?
Ballooned form what weight after his mom died? Was he skinny then suddenly fat or on his way already? He's eating himself into an early grave who cares, fuck you.

Who cares when he was born or why he is a head of state? A state of what? Children with nuclear weapons? Who cares, fuck you.
Daddy paid his way into Switzerschool, free case-study for Jungian opportunists. All the better to fuck him with, SCORE 1 for the demise of Pok Choi. Maye he can get in the douchebag protection program.

Who hasn't been found with a bondage-porn magazine during an exam?: Non-information.

Scared of barbers and calling his new self-crop the, "Ambition?" Uh, paranioia, need more cocaine and advisers, maybe that chemist with the syringe of happy-splooge...

SO he used to be like a regular kid and then he got groomed for dad's seat because the other son was kinna weakly for wanting pussy...OOOooooKay. Son with no ambitions for fageena gets to play with bombs....Riiiiight.

Gotta give it up to his new propaganda campain
of bad-hollywood-nods with 30-yr-old CG technology, cheesy bastards are as cheesy bastards do, ad infinitude. He can't help it, he's retarded.

Plastic surgery to look like the first-Reich cunt?? Brilliant. Keep up the Shatner until you destory an entire culture, fuck you Kim, yer a cunt.

(Anyone well-versed in my rants on the NK clan will remember, I fear and grieve and always have for the people of Korea, north and south. We make fun of this cunt, but let other cunts tell us we need to let him live, and that's fucked.

Start with him, and work your way up to the rich white folks who run the world into the ground, and then you have a party.

@aaronfr That violates Facebook's policies. I advise you start there. I'm not sure what VideoSift can do about a problem on Facebook. I'll report it for you via Facebook. You should follow suit and hopefully if that profile incurs enough reports, it will be removed.

If you block that individual and you're logged in with Facebook on VideoSift, I wonder if that would get rid of that particular individual for you. I doubt this problem occurs often, so you could attend to it on a case by case basis.

I'm surprised the dude in the backseat who was smart enough to film that truck wasn't also smart enough to advise his friend to move to the other lane. Like, maybe after the 2nd time they were nearly hit.

Isn't that the Negative Zone? I'm fairly certain it works like however Marvel wants it to work. Sort of like the Power Cosmic. Stupid review judging it as a movie outside the bounds of comic book conventions.

Comics are silly, convoluted, and prefer form over function:

1. Thor and Iron Man are required to have pissing contests.
2. Sunglasses and eye patches make people without super powers look badass.
3. Banner on a motorcycle is a good juxtaposition against his Hulky-jump-through-the-air travel form.
4. Loki is a conceited god so the Iron Man delay works -- didn't this reviewer. already assess that Loki was there to convert and not kill?
5. Of course CAPTAIN AMERICA just jumped from a plane. Idiot.
6. Did he just judge the movie according the Captain America's silly costume? Idiot.
7. No lap dance? He wants to watch the Russian dude give Black Widow a lap dance? I'm confused.
8. Bad guys running laps happens in... most action films with bad guys that need to fill in some time and guide direction visually. Reeeaaaally dumb criticism.
9. Plasma screens? You'd prefer to see a cell phone and then a split screen with 4 other people on cell phones? WTF
10. Loki's scepter is also a space phone??? My phone is also a camera, GPS, medical adviser, blogging tool, gaming device, and if I could download an app that performed mind control, I would. Loki is a god so he can.
11. The hellicarrier was created by Jack Kirby. Fuck you, this is an Avengers movie.
12. Sweeping cameras may sound silly, but comic book logic dictates that this is fine. Why not?
13. His criticism of little girls being able to find Bruce Banner is a criticism of our emotional attachment to the Gavroche, not the Avengers. Is the mystique of a street smart urchin gone from our collective unconscious?
14. Hawkeye's virus arrow is perfectly executed and makes sense according to his abilities.
15. Thor being easily tricked by Loki using low brow tactics is true even in Norse mythology. What exactly are we critiquing here?
16. Loki's objective in being captured is partly him being an overly confidant asshole god. He's just sort of going around half cocked because he can and likes to do so. The gods aren't smarter than us, just more powerful and with magical abilities that trump technology. In fact, this means they don't need to try as hard and would definitely be candidates in the personality disorder department. Hell, for all we know they could suffer from intellectual disorders that would never have become an issue (aside from making them stupidly violent) considering their power.
17. Hawkeye versus Black Widow is not cool? Damn.
18. Fury also gave an intimidating death stare in Jurassic Park when Nedry's "Ah ah ah, you didn't say the magic word" security screen pops up. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS. I liked the half reference.
19. If you have trouble understanding the powers of Mjölnir, why do you also complain about the plodding exposition?! These things require exposition and it's so arbitrary that it becomes plodding. Comics are FILLED with plodding exposition because of this and there's a point where you just have to know the characters. Do they explain superman's laser eyes in the movies? Actually... do they?
20. Black Widow is a weapons expert, including theoretical weaponry.
21. In the comics Hulk learns to control his powers and can even be intellectual in said form.
22. The alien invasion would do more damage than a nuclear bomb. These villains enslave entire worlds.
23. The ending requires homework??? THE ENTIRE SERIES OF MOVIES REQUIRES HOMEWORK.


That being said, I agree with a good number of the points:

1. The tesseract was a rebranding of the Cosmic Cube which has a long history in the Marvel universe. (So I guess this movie was made for comic book fans?)
2. Well lit facility. There should have been some sort of cloaking shield around it, which is perfectly acceptable in a comic book world, if not the real.
3. Cap's bet. I don't believe Cap would have done that because it isn't just.
4. Speaking in English to Germans. It would have been cool to hear him speak in German. Damn!
5. Hawkeye's arrow fucking up the hellicarrier. However, I could see this happening in a comic book, I just don't like it.
6. Captain America's ear piece and bad aim.
7. Tesseract mind control wearing off after blunt trauma.
8. Cap's super powers are kinda lame in these movies, but I'm sure if they weren't, then this review would contain criticism about how his human fists can smash through metal.
9. The aliens are a pretty shitty replacement for the Skrulls. This is what makes me the saddest.
10. Imiatating transformers... this bugged the crap out of me when I first saw the trailer. UGH!
11. Thor's lightning must have a long cooldown.
12. Yeah, it was pretty lame when the aliens died after they were cut off from the mother ship. Inferior to the Skrulls fo sho.

Applying external heat to a hypothermic person is a great way to put their body into shock. Dry them off, cover them and insulate them. The worst thing you can do is try to heat them up too quickly.

When the body becomes hypothermic all the blood rushes away from the extremities and to the centre of the body, protecting the major organs, particularly the brain heart and lungs. Warming the person using external heat makes the blood rush to the area which is being heated and away from the brain heart and lungs.

I work as a rescue person at a sailing lake in the UK and we have to deal with a lot of hypothermic people in the middle of winter. All they want to do is go and get in a warm shower, and when they do you end up with heads split open from when they pass out from the shock.

A properly wrapped up person will warm up (as long as they aren't too far gone, which the person in the video clearly wasn't). It won't be what they want to do, and it's not what feels the most comfortable to them, but it is the safest option for them.

we used to be advised to put the hypothermic person in a sleeping bag with another person. This changed when it was found that more often than not this ended up with two hypothermic people, as the cold person chilled the well person faster than they could support.

It was a very brave thing for the guy to do, stripping off in those conditions isn't comfortable or easy, and he did it for a great reason. It just wasn't necessarily the right thing to do.

The kids going roller skating made the dealers go roller skating.. seems to me they haven't avoided the dealers so much as fooled the parents and advised the dealers of a more secured dealing location.