>> ^kronosposeidon:

^At least it didn't seem to be a 9-hour video to me.


That's how long the after image took to disappear.

Your video, BMW - Flash Projection - How They Did It & The Commercial, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I fix my typo and DENY you your nickel >> ^ulysses1904:

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone misspelled commercial as commerical.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone misspelled commercial as commerical.

thanks! shit, did not mean to take long! Don't want people being put off watching!
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*notlong

hey p user. if it's a commerical, say so in the title.

>> ^looris:

Isn't adding the commercial channel enough? O_o
>> ^marinara:
hey looris, i don't like your description. if it's a commercial, say so. TIA



The title and the description didn't give any info about what the video is, I suppose i would have to look to the channels to figure it out. hmmmm. commerical music geek animation. Where are my venn diagrams!!?! Well I know it's not a reality comedy show, not a dozen other things.

To be perfectly fucking honest, I'm not mad at you, Looris. It's this waste of time video, I don't like.

My main email is gmail. You can be sure I'll be turning this feature off. I can't understand why i would want 2 inboxes.

*backup=[...snipped...]

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday: I'm never going to convince blanco...


I'll give it a shot.

blankfist, you mentioned that zoning laws are what prevent McDonalds from setting up their corporate headquarters in a residential neighborhood. And you mentioned that as an absurdly extreme example of people doing whatever they want with their (land) property. I'm glad that you recognize it as absurd, because that implies that you also acknowledge that there are in fact sound legal limits to what a property owner may or may not do with their property, like storing nuclear waste in one's basement, or failing to cut one's grass and generally keep one's home from looking abandoned (blight). What is the legal basis for such laws if property rights are supposed to be absolute? The short answer is that they are not absolute - there are all sorts of restrictions on property rights, especially in the case of land.

But even if, for the sake of argument, I allow that property rights were absolute in the sense I think you're intending, one of the main legal bases for zoning restritctions is because it would infringe on the property rights of others, by lowering the value of their property. That same argument can be (and often is) applied to businesses. That's why strip clubs and porn shops can't be located wherever their owners would like. There are more mundane examples as well, such as the restriction on putting a big box store in the middle of a light commerical/residential mixed area. The exact same legal reasoning can be applied to the practice of discrimination of customers. By allowing a grocery store owner to hang a "whites only" sign in his window, it damages any neighboring businesses, and reduces neighboring property values in general.

That legal argument may ignore the morally repugnant aspects of discrimination, and would probably never be used in practice - it was just for the sake of argument given the premise of nearly absolute property rights. The more appropriate answer is what I mentioned above - property rights aren't even close to absolute, and the property rights of business owner's are routinely more restricted than those of private residences. The reason for that is because despite an ever growing number of Supreme Court decisions giving more and more individual rights to businesses, we're still not quite to the point of corporate citizenship.

Choggie - ..did you drop acid before typing that? i get your point but.. damn.

Pennypacker - ...why do you always string together words in the most moronic fashion as if to make some keen observation?

Journalism is the conveyance of newsworthy material. [which undoubtedly includes the journalist's opinion of what they are reporting]

That means that, yes, even Glenn Beck could be considered a journalist IF.. he didn't make shit up. If he reported objective conditions i.e. facts without blind assertions he would qualify.

["Infotainment" = drama drummed up over news events to get hook viewers i.e. minimal contain - maximal propoganda
Journalism = reporting objectively with little to no personal opinion.]

Second.
She's mainstream for three reasons:
1. She has a popular following. She's part of popular culture.
2. She's part of the mass media like Colbert and Beck and all TV personalities.
3. She has ties to corporate or commerical entities.

She's mainstream because she's part of MSNBC which is a large popular highly-vocal/public corporation like Fox or Disney or Spike.
She's a journalist because she diggs deeper into a topic to find accurate support for any commentary she might interject to grab viewers/listeners.

Please stick to objective conditions to make a point.
And not simply your subjective opinions/assertions.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Enoch, what is the point of this video: http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/anti-atheist-christian-
tv-commerical/
To convince theists that without god the world is fucked? No, they already "know" that.
The point of these videos is three fold -
1. Present a compelling argument/message/premise
2. Assure the indivdual that there is a community that shares their belief
3. Catch the confused doubtful little fishes on the fringes
Could you explain how the producers are retarded for attempting to get a thoughtful reaction out of people?
Or if that just an ad hominem at work because you're offended?
>> ^enoch:
that makes no sense...
convince an atheist that there is no god and religion is bad...
if you are correct,and the point of this video is a "shock and awe factor for those on the fence"then these creators of this video are retarded.


you are coming at me from the wrong angle scooter...check yourself.
you dont know me,nor my beliefs,thoughts,dreams or visions.
so please dont leave your dick waggling in the breeze acting like you do.
i shall ignore the first part of your post,
not because i am "offended" but because it is irrelevant.

now the points you made,especially number 2.
i never thought about it from that perspective.that there would be people who no longer believe but may be surrounded by people who do.i know this occurs on an intellectual basis but did not think about that in this context concerning the video.
on that note i say thank you genji.
that not only answers my incredulity concerning this video but it's actual purpose.
i think thats what you were trying to say in your previous post but it made no sense.
now it does..thanks.
now concerning number 1 and 3..
meh../shrugs.
compelling argument?really? come on man..not even close.
and catch little fish?since when is atheism like scientology?or jehovas witness? mormons?
naw..if the video is to let people who no longer believe in god or religion know they are not alone then i am all for that and retract my retarded comment.
you can email them and let them know you defended their honor justly.

as for me being offended...well...i'll play nice.
i was not offended in the least.why would i be?
thats just a concentrated drop of pure silly.
and what i wrote was not an ad hominem.
if i had written ONLY that they were retarded,or satan spawn..blah blah blah..then you would be correct.
but i made a statement and ended it with an opinion on the producers mental capacity=not an ad hominem attack.

let me conclude with a hearty thank you genji.
but i still stand by my statement if the purpose of this video was to change the hearts and minds of religious folk,or convert in some bizarre way an atheist.but to let a person know they are not alone?
thats ok in my book.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Forgive me Garmachi. I've quoted you cause i think it goes back to Enochs point.
Here's my reply to a friend on facebook that sorta felt the same.
GenjiKilpatrick -
I think the commerical pertains simply (and only) to dogmatic religions that force insecurities onto their followers to ensure obedience i.e. faith.
Like how an abusive spouse or parent wields power over the victim thru fear and manipulation.
It reaches out to those with doubts, those mistreated, or those that think religion is a harmless & personal issue rather than a social/public issue of abuse.


Very good. Then I revise my statement: This video is not purely atheist. For example, Lord Ganesha allegedly wields tremendous power, yes is purely altruistic. Not a single vengeful bone in his (its?) body. Were I not already an atheist, I would piously worship Ganesha, and be not the least bit shaken by this poorly produced piece of propaganda.

Forgive me Garmachi. I've quoted you cause i think it goes back to Enochs point.
Here's my reply to a friend on facebook that sorta felt the same.

GenjiKilpatrick -

I think the commerical pertains simply (and only) to dogmatic religions that force insecurities onto their followers to ensure obedience i.e. faith.

Like how an abusive spouse or parent wields power over the victim thru fear and manipulation.

It reaches out to those with doubts, those mistreated, or those that think religion is a harmless & personal issue rather than a social/public issue of abuse.
>> ^garmachi:
That was not atheist. It was specifically anti-Christian.

Enoch, what is the point of this video: http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/anti-atheist-christian-tv-commerical/

To convince theists that without god the world is fucked? No, they already "know" that.

The point of these videos is three fold -

1. Present a compelling argument/message/premise
2. Assure the indivdual that there is a community that shares their belief
3. Catch the confused doubtful little fishes on the fringes

Could you explain how the producers are retarded for attempting to get a thoughtful reaction out of people?
Or if that just an ad hominem at work because you're offended?
>> ^enoch:
that makes no sense...
convince an atheist that there is no god and religion is bad...

if you are correct,and the point of this video is a "shock and awe factor for those on the fence"then these creators of this video are retarded.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^enoch:
this commercial/message was created for atheists or agnostics who are suspicious of religion...
[the] basic premise would be very clear to someone who is not religious and offensive to one who is...

Uh.. i think that's the whole point. The shock and awe factor for those on the fence.
You can't be neutral about the commerical and so the individual is forced to confront the accusations.
Those that can be honest with themselves will immediately recognize the similarities and hence the point that's being made.
Those that deny it will be caught in the conundrum which only further proves the original point.
If, however, you're unshakeably devoted to your superstition-based faith, the commerical is irrelevant.
Since your superstitious faith serves as "proof" for any doubts you might have or might incur in contemplating the message.


that makes no sense...
convince an atheist that there is no god and religion is bad?
or an agnostic who has already dismissed religion but is unsure the existence or nature of a creator?
hey..why fly to your destination when you can walk.

if you are correct,and the point of this video is a "shock and awe factor for those on the fence"then these creators of this video are retarded.