remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

Wow, he really blasted through too, what a brute.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Well, this is only half the story. There is a certain amount of faith in science as a whole. This is because science doesn't actually prove anything:

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

To believe in science you must have faith in empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Yet there are many truths empiricism cannot account for. Science itself is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions called "brute givens" which presume the operations of the Universe have remained constant in the past and will continue to do so. Here is a good dialog on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Please ignore the title, it was just the best clip I could find. Also, check out this conversation between a physics major and a bunch of physicists and mathematicians about him losing faith in empiricism:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

This isn't always true. For instance, the scientific community at large consider evolution to be "proven" and won't tolerate any dissent on the issue. A scientist who even breathes the words "intelligent design" will be totally ostracized, have their reputations ruined, be unable to publish scientific papers and lose their ability to get grants. It is nearly impossible to do any work on intelligent design for that reason. Evolutionary theories are the sacred cow of science, and they religiously defend it, even to the point of suppressing any debate on it, and also by propagating this view into our political and education system. They also file lawsuits to keep intelligent design from being mentioned in classrooms. This has clearly gone beyond the bounds of mere scientific inquiry. If scientists had taken this same attitude on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics may never have been discovered.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

Well, you have to realize that some of things you seem to consider facts, aren't. The Big Bang theory is not a fact, it is totally unprovable. Not only that, but the theory itself doesn't even really work..it has a number of problems, from how stars and planets form, to the lack of observable matter and energy to make it work, to what they call the smoothness problem:

"These structures must have arisen from tiny variations in the energy density in the early universe. Where the densities were greatest is, presumably, where gravity caused matter to collapse into the structures we see today.

The problem is that to explain these structures seems to require a universe that was created in an incredibly smooth non-chaotic manner. This seems extremely unlikely."''

I like the last bit. It isn't unlikely if you consider the Universe was created by an omniopotent being. The basic problem with big bang cosmology and evoltuion is that they are not real science. You can't observe and test them, they are speculation and assumption about things that happened in the past. It is mere interpretation of data, and there are many ways to interpret it. We are both looking at the same facts, but interpreting them in different ways.

Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

I don't preumse I can prove to you that Christianity is true. I can show you that there are good reasons to believe there is a God, and that there is good evidence for Christianity, but I cannot prove my experience. I can however tell you this is something you can prove to yourself. If you ask God for the evidence, He will provide it to you. You can do this by praying something like this: "Jesus, if you're real, I want to know about it. If you're God please come into my life and I will give it over to you" If you can pray those words and mean them, you will get an answer. He promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him dilligently.

As far as the crutch thing goes, what I am speaking about is sin. Those who don't know God are in a servitude to their passions and desires. Meaning, the first priority is a fulfillment of these desires, which the intellect first assents to, and then seeks out a worldview that justifies this fulfillment. Meaning, the atheist naturally doesn't want to believe that which contradicts the fulfillment of his natural desires, and will resist believing it. Admitting that God exists also means that you have a responsibility to obey Him, which further means that you can no longer live according to fleshly desires. So, an atheist will resist the knowledge of God so they can continue to live as they please, doing that which they know by their conscience is wrong, but being unable to resist these things. It has virtually nothing to do with evidence; our sinful nature is just naturally inclined to be in rebellion against Gods authority and will continue to operate this way on any pretense that seems even remotely plausible.

>> ^Quboid:
I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.
There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.
Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.
The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.
Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.
(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

It's attacking others like a cross between an elementary school bully or a overzealous used car salesman is what it is. And that crap isn't criticism; it's name calling.

OK, so you agree then that:

The earth is on average on a warming trend.
CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.
CO2 levels are increasing.

You just don't believe humans are causing any of the above, correct?

FYI, I didn't say the consensus opinion is always right. If the consensus opinion is based on solid science and fact, then it tends to be correct. Good scientific theories are produced by solid experiments, data I just want to be clear I'm not saying that human induced climate change is a scientific law. I'm saying it's a theory, one based on mounting evidence that supports it. I'm perfectly willing to suggest that the theory is not 100% correct, or could end up proven to be false altogether. I do not have a vested interest to a preconceived outcome.

But the evidence is increasingly overwhelming that it is occurring, and it is caused by humans. I don't need this issue to underscore a core believe of mine that free markets left unchecked do societies severe damage. I've already got hundreds of examples of that. (Unsafe working conditions, child labor, unsafe to consume goods, massive banking fraud, environmental damage other than climate change, unlivable wages, just to name a few)


>> ^quantumushroom:

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.
Only you can fool yourself. Since I don't know HIS EARNESS personally, it's not a personal attack on ODUMBO. Any real leader (or pretend leader) should expect criticism. I have my own standards for who is a liberal and who is Kenyan, and don't expect anyone else to give a crap.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.
Since you offered: "(You're saying) CO2 increases are not due to human activity?"
That's right. There's no solid objective evidence that man-made industrial activity has a direct, notable effect on climate. Weather is weather and there's nothing puny humans can do about it. For now.
BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right?
Nor do they make the "consensus" opinion correct by brute majority.
You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy.

It's like you're finally figuring out what the alarmists are trying to do! It's all about control and has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'.
Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change.
This idea had its moment in the sun. It failed. Public opinion is against the alarmists. Capitalism works, socialism "kind of" works until if flops (Greece).
The climate heretic has spoken.

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.

Only you can fool yourself. Since I don't know HIS EARNESS personally, it's not a personal attack on ODUMBO. Any real leader (or pretend leader) should expect criticism. I have my own standards for who is a liberal and who is Kenyan, and don't expect anyone else to give a crap.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.

Since you offered: "(You're saying) CO2 increases are not due to human activity?"

That's right. There's no solid objective evidence that man-made industrial activity has a direct, notable effect on climate. Weather is weather and there's nothing puny humans can do about it. For now.

BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right?

Nor do they make the "consensus" opinion correct by brute majority.

You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy.

It's like you're finally figuring out what the alarmists are trying to do! It's all about control and has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'.

Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change.

This idea had its moment in the sun. It failed. Public opinion is against the alarmists. Capitalism works, socialism "kind of" works until if flops (Greece).

The climate heretic has spoken.

"0000" is a valid password.</pedanatry>>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^possom:
What amuses me is that "hacking cell phones" has turned out to be "guessing voicemail passwords". I bet most of their information was gained by entering 1234 or 1111 into people's voicemail. Hacking? Stupid cell phone users for sure.

There are only 9999 10,000 possibilities and, since voicemail generally doesn't employ any sort of tarpitting or other brute force protections, I'm sure one could write a script to try voicemail passwords pretty rapidly. You don't even have to try them in succession since voicemail systems can handle multiple simultaneous connections.
Why find some clever backdoor or exploit when you can brute force the thing in a matter of an hour?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^possom:
What amuses me is that "hacking cell phones" has turned out to be "guessing voicemail passwords". I bet most of their information was gained by entering 1234 or 1111 into people's voicemail. Hacking? Stupid cell phone users for sure.

There are only 9999 possibilities and, since voicemail generally doesn't employ any sort of tarpitting or other brute force protections, I'm sure one could write a script to try voicemail passwords pretty rapidly. You don't even have to try them in succession since voicemail systems can handle multiple simultaneous connections.
Why find some clever backdoor or exploit when you can brute force the thing in a matter of an hour?


These guys aren't that smart. The majority of people aren't that smart and so, yes, entering default pins is characterised as "hacking". However it's done it still means an offence under the RIP Act. Of course it would be interesting if they did secure some hacker's services to brute force passwords. Nothing would surprise me from hereon in.

Story goes that some guy in the early days of phone use alerted a tabloid to this problem who surprisingly did not get back to him or run a story based on the tip. What happened is that the practice rapidly spread through Fleet Street. Another little scam journalists would do is hand new phones to crime victims they had access to so they could "stay in touch". The phones either had the default pin or changed to one the journalist knew.

>> ^possom:

What amuses me is that "hacking cell phones" has turned out to be "guessing voicemail passwords". I bet most of their information was gained by entering 1234 or 1111 into people's voicemail. Hacking? Stupid cell phone users for sure.


There are only 9999 possibilities and, since voicemail generally doesn't employ any sort of tarpitting or other brute force protections, I'm sure one could write a script to try voicemail passwords pretty rapidly. You don't even have to try them in succession since voicemail systems can handle multiple simultaneous connections.

Why find some clever backdoor or exploit when you can brute force the thing in a matter of an hour?

Totally irresponsible to allow a vicious animal like that into a household. See how the beast "plays"??? That's just for the camera. When we aren't looking, the brute will probably take out his "friend" and then wipe out the rest of the house when the owners are sleeping. I hope the poor little pit keeps a wary eye on that goblin.

Brute force ftw

In answering other points; I never demand anything. Nor have I. Have you ever been wistful? That's how I feel and that's the emotion I am trying to express.

And I have always pointed to the fact that masses of people make stupid decisions. Perhaps because their worst traits feed off of one another's worst traits? But I strongly note that individuals are awesome, most smart, and better (Including yourself in this) than a mob or culture.

There is not a sense of admin versus the little guy from me. There is a sense of admins sometimes powerless to stop what has occurred.

But, let's note something else, since I feel long of wind today. It is your opinion that my view points are skewered, and that is fine. Perhaps that it is different, or otherwise "skewered," points to the possibility that it is better than others--although lacking self confidence prohibits me from feeling that way. As such, I will take the comment as neither compliment nor jab but as is--an opinion.

But now let me switch to socratic fashion in this--since he is my hero and I can better put my point of view across. And, so let's question some "knowns." It will help answer the question of how I got to my conclusions.

You stated that everything done here is for the "best" for the videosift community. So, if you will, please enlighten the sift on some quantifiable "best." Remember though, if you please, that doing for others a convinence is neither good nor ill, neither for the best nor worse but, rather, situational.

Also, we should remeber that the best is not necessarily such things as making people happy. Much happiness has been wrought at the expense of others. For instance, the estranged husband whose wife passes, or the videos of cops killing helpless people with brute force.

If I may ask, what was the reason for the standard in the first place? You seem to have stated, by denying that morals were comprimised, that the standard was never a standard, but rather, just a guideline created for creations sake.

Further, if I may be so bold, after admitting yourself that the slippery slope was started, then how can you boldly note that it should stop? My opinion was that it should have never started. And, while it is possible to state that the comment you made wasn't about the slippery slope starting, it is, unfortunately, now about that.

It's only 36^52 if the attacker knows there must be 52 characters, which seems fairly unlikely. Instead, assuming 52 is the longest likely password, you have to add up 36^52 + 36^51 + 36^50, etc...

In any case, this password is fairly secure. The brute force GPU methods another poster mentioned are currently viable against 9-10 character passwords, but only if we have the hash, and only if the hashing algorithm is very simple. The complexity of a hash would be something that we would expect to scale with processing power, so in terms of addressing this problem we could effectively assume that the resulting computer in TNG time would be about the same effectiveness as a current one (in terms of hashes analyzed per second).

Unfortunately, this password is about 10^62 times as complex as the largest viable brute force candidates. That is a large number.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Stingray:
Quoted from http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Brothers_(episode)
The strength of Data's lockout code would potentially require trying 36⁵² combinations to break it, or 846,700,936,056,091,894,301,310,586,236,842,935,416,138,248,772,949,513,519,821,268,414,868,295,354,679,296 (8.467x1080) combinations – equivalent to cracking a 269-bit key in symmetric cryptography, something that is currently impossible to do.

Maybe not, I just read this the other day: "Cheap GPUs are rendering strong passwords useless."


Yeah, Data is way advanced than those. I'd like to see brute force!

>> ^dag:

Exactly. This second group of beautiful dancing idiots are protesting the heavy-handed police brutes who assaulted the first group of trolls. Bodyslams for shuffling your feet is never right action.
Yes, these guys are kind of idiotic and they dance poorly - but damn it, this is how things start. This is how you begin to throw off the yoke of an increasingly represive government security apparatus that instills fear in its people. This is what democracy looks like.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
I've been to the Jefferson memorial a few times. If I went there on a nice evening for a little bit of quiet reflection (seriously), then I can see how I would be annoyed by a bunch of people dancing around it. It would certainly seem a little disrespectful. But at the same time, it might be fun, and I might even join in. (I dance like an idiot too)
Either way, the fact is that these people were trolling. So to arrest them is to fall right into their trap. It's so absurd to arrest someone for dancing under a statue of Thomas Jefferson, it's a shame that it couldn't have just been laughed off for what it was.



bit late but.......they werent "bodyslamed for shuffling their feet" they were bodyslammed for repeatedly and adamantly resisting arrest.

but you see what you wanna see i suppose

@dag -- why didn't this second demonstration end the way the first one did?

It's the same situation. Why didn't the heavy handed police brutes show up?

Let me answer for you -- they learned from the first event.

And really.... point to me who is afraid in either of these events. NOBODY is afraid. They are children defying the rules. They are trolls looking for a reaction. And THEY WON.

There is real police brutality out there. This isn't it.