I was clear from the beginning that I came to lend a Christian voice to the sift. I enjoyed videosift and had been using it for some time before I created an account. I registered an account specifically because of the number of anti-christian videos that I was noticing were hitting the top ten. I wanted to engage with the people here over the topic of Christianity because the sift was, and primarily still is, an echo chamber for the worldview of secular humanism. That's the way the sift likes it, and the sift is intolerant of any voice which challenges that viewpoint. Period, end of story.

There's nothing wrong with my coming to represent Christ, here. Have I utterly failed to do so? Yes, most definitely. However, it is up to me how I want to use this site. I have commented here almost exclusively on religious topics, either on my videos or someone elses it. Occasionally I will comment on a political video or something else, but usually only on religious topics. The point being is that, that is the way I have chosen to use this site. I don't run around and dictate to anyone else how they could or should use the sift, so why should I be singled out? I didn't cause any material harm to anyone, I wasn't off topic, I didn't flout the rules. I was on topic on the videos I commented on, and I brought a Christian viewpoint to the discussion. The sift, being inhabited primarily by atheists, agnostics and anti-theists, utterly rejects that viewpoint. It's not any different if I were to go to the comments section of any major website and say anything positive about Christianity. I would instantly get 2 to 3 comments mocking everything I said.

I stated in my post that I realized that bringing a Christian viewpoint to the sift would get me a lot of flak. I didn't always react well to that, and I acted like a jerk at times. I am sorry for that. I could have done more to build relationships here and I never put in the time. There is some truth to what you have said, that I brought the way I was treated on myself. But your rant is also a product of the simplistic and distorted lens that you view me through. I mean, you on one hand call my treatment here a persecution fantasy and on the other hand say I brought it upon myself. That's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simply. The truth is, there was a concerted campaign to deny my participation on this site, and whatever you think the reason may be, it did happen.

As to the video, if this video was of a senior consultant from the Bush administration admitting that they systemically deceived the American people this would be #1 on the sift. You're deceiving yourself if you think that the reason this video is being suppressed is due to anything other than the ideological bent of the sift.

Sorry Enoch, but I don't consider your bodily functions to be reliable evidence of hypocrisy. Perhaps you should consult a doctor about your particular issues.

I'll make sure I consult you in the future about which sifts and when it is appropriate to confront Lantern and Bob. I wasn't aware that it was in the TOS of Videosift that I need your permission.

How exactly do you objectively measure humanity, or lack thereof? Maybe if your emotion filled rant had any actual meat as you say I might be better able to comply.

What's the matter? Choggie got himself banned, so you're picking Lantern and Bob as your new hard luck case in need of your personal "defense" even though you claim to not condone their posts too. If I remember right I called you out as a hypocrite when you did that with Choggie. Are you finally revenge posting? What took you so long to have the stones to say something?

@Trancecoach - respectfully leaving this discussion based on the following:

"You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism"

I don't understand how you can say that after i was the person that investigated the source of the first link you gave out. You hadn't even bothered to look into it, so i did, and you can say with a straight face that i'm a "believer" who has lost his scepticism?

You didn't even check completely through the second lot of links you posted, because the one i did check (on YOUR ultimate recommendation) ended up being written by a guy who saw climate change as one of mankind's top 10 problems. You've shown yourself twice now to be using sources that you haven't even fucking looked at, evidenced by a half hour investigation by me! You didn't even put a half hour into it!?

I remain open to evidence that climate change is not a man-made concern, or that it is not a concern. I'm not going to sit here and relay exactly how each of us think the scientific community works. You can read how it works on the scientific method and scientific consensus pages i linked earlier, anyone can. It's not open for debate; there is an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence in favour and there is not enough and not significant enough scientific evidence against. It isn't a coincidence that ~99% of the research points in one direction, and it isn't some conspiracy.... that isn't how science works. It's not perfect, a lot of shit science gets through because it's so hard to read and so relatively few people want to trawl through shite, but that's why it's better to look at the consensus - what is the AVERAGE opinion of ALL the clever people? It's a community that i consider incorruptible - because even if you paid off 10 research centres, there's still millions of individual scientists, individual institutions, so many people dedicated to keeping it pure because we know that's the only way we get the most from it. And ... the science and maths speaks for itself, the models are not "just models" as the moron associated with your latest link says. They are the best representations we have and they do represent parts of physical reality, and by using carefully considered techniques we can extract information about things. The alternative is to consult a Ouija board!?

By the way, nice 240 page pdf document for me to refer to. I didn't ask for a single link, i asked for a single point about which we were in disagreement... usually papers are cited to reinforce a point. You don't just cite something and go "there you go, read all of that, whatever you see that agrees with me; that's what i'm talking about!"

@A-Winston @lantern53

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

I'll simplify it for you - those who are not well educated in a subject greatly overestimate their ability at the subject, because they don't know all of the things that they don't know.

Those who are better educated in a subject greatly underestimate their ability at the subject, because they know how complicated it is.

Now you two don't know about science, and that's ok - that's not an insult and i don't want any of this to be insulting. But it is meant to be a reminder that you are talking about one of if not the most technical and complicated abstract subjects that we as a species pursue. If you don't even understand the "scientific method" (a distinct term) and how the "scientific community" (another distinct term) works and comes to consensus, how can you possibly hope to decipher fact (science) from fiction (propaganda)?

I keep having to post this, but i'll do it again. The scientific community is made up of all kinds of people such as university lecturers and students (yes, your kids might be part of the community), amateur scientists, people at research institutions.... anyone who cares enough to approach things methodically and systematically, anyone interested in finding out as much as we possibly can about everything we can. Real science does not get paid based on results - the funding is provided for the research and the research finds whatever it finds. You can't lie about science, because other anal bastards (far worse than me) are just waiting to find something wrong with it and pillory it. That's how the scientific community works, it's like internet comments only worse. You can't get away with doing bad science for long.

Most people in scientific research do not have a lot of money, do you understand that? I can tell you right now - i contribute to scientific papers and such, so that makes me part of the scientific community. I'm just a post-grad student living on a student loan and doing something that i enjoy. My lecturers make a living, but they are not well-off by any means. We also suffer tax when politicians take our evidence and twist it in front of our faces. And we're left standing here, exasperated, wondering why you'd listen to non-experts over experts. If your doctor said you had diabetes, you wouldn't ask a politician to confirm it? If you want a scientific opinion, consult the scientific community.

I would love you to ask yourself the following question; "What do i really know about the scientific community and the scientific method?" Because if you took half an hour one day to go to an accredited university and ask the science department about how science works, how consensus is formed, and what makes good scientific practice, you'd be able to rid yourselves of these myths that somehow all scientists (i.e. average people, doing scientific research for the sake of science) are in some kind of club or gang or being paid to say that humans are causing climate devastation. The reason the majority of people say that is because the science speaks for itself and is not open to interpretation. The facts are facts.

Are you really thinking this through?

I want to show you one final thing, and it comes from the wikipedia page on Scientific method (which i recommend you read to avail yourself about which you speak, please don't speak from ignorance).

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

The science speaks for itself, and i recommend you start listening to real scientists. Why prefer the opinion of a few individuals who are either flawed in their scientific reasoning or flat out being paid to lie? The scientific community is in full agreement.

Edit: Sorry for the long post, but you're talking about something you don't understand and it exasperates me. You wouldn't come here and talk about the details of internal medicine, but you're quite happy to tell a scientist, to his face, that he doesn't know science.

@Trancecoach - they respond in literature all the time. A scientist's response is to prove it, scientifically. They do, and are, all the time. But most people do not understand science and those that do still find scientific papers daunting and difficult to follow. People like the two i mentioned above, they don't have a hope in hell of understanding the source of the information, and they sadly look to the wrong people to explain it to them.

Very little in science is black and white. Big upvote for NDT's follow up though. Here is an extremely thorough rundown of many of the issues at hand written by an unbiased reporter: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

In article #2 he writes about FDA safety testing of GMO's, which, while "voluntary" are always performed. According to an FDA policy analyst he interviews, "(I) frankly cannot really envision any circumstances under which anybody placing a ‘bioengineered’ food on the market would have the temerity NOT to consult with (the FDA).”

In the next article, he writes about the perception that GMO's are the product of for-profit corporations and meets with plant scientists at UC Davis; a nonprofit, publicly funded university.

If you don't have time to read the entire series, then at the very least read his final article. His conclusions are well-tempered and thoughful.

SEO consultant london - Creative agency london has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

SEO consultant london - Creative agency london has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

we never asked you, dumbass. unlike religion, science works whether or not you believe in it. News flash, the world changes every day without consulting @lantern53. If you don't like what your taxes go towards, put your money where your whining mouth is and GTFO of the country.

we won't miss you

go back to whining about kids being on your lawn, it would be more productive for you.

Thanks mate, very nice comment of you.

Always like to hear different viewpoints, makes me consider ideas I hadn't and also bulk up my own point of view, so all good

I suppose they're all specific specialities of the broader business field, I would also add accounting but they are very broadly interrelated. For example in bank lending decisions, discounted cash flow estimations (finance) which are reliant on income statement and balance sheet information are just as important as IS/BS audit expertise (accounting) which assesses the credibility of their reporting. This is especially true for smaller, privately owned entities (who obviously can't rely on public equity, so are generally bank reliant). Large publicly listed companies have much more stringent auditing requirements already, and public disclosure means that they are highly open to scrutiny.

Economics beyond 101 basics is generally is more of an academic niche. The macroeconomic side looking at large scale GDP, inflation, employment etc., is relied upon in government, treasuries and policy think tanks. Large listed companies would certainly have a dedicated in-house team for consultations. Medium sized companies might contract dedicated industry research consultant firms, but outside of that their use is quite limited.

The microeconomic side is industry specific looking at competitive behaviour inter-firm, with suppliers and customers. It's generally a more wishy washy field which introduces some amateur psychology via behavioural economics and game theory. It's more of an academic field really. I can imagine large multinationals with few competitors employing them or hiring consultants. We have a near duopoly here in supermarkets and I can see them using microeconomic theory in pricing decisions for example.

..And I loved the exchange at 4:30 where the client started to understand, but was cut off by the other consultants...

I think it's because Quebec has a shortage of doctors because Quebec in it's infinite stupidity and xenophobia do not allow doctors to practice unless they speak high level french (the same reason I can't get Permanent Residency here while other Aussie friends in BC and Ontario had no issue). I guess we simply didn't have a serious shortage in Australia. It's so easy to find a GP, I guess it might be harder to find one that Bulk Bills (medicare takes the entire cost of consultation) for low income earners.

My experience at hospitals is limited. When i got hit on the head by a cricket bat, i had to wait 2 hours, I think (was a long time ago), to get stitches. And when I had my tonsils out, I had to wait 6 months for the elective surgery because we didn't have private insurance.

My girlfriend had to go to the ER when she had mono here, we had to wait an hour or two before she was seen by a doctor. While we were there, the hospital was fucking decrepit, the waiting room was freezing (there was a lady who had a broken arm and she was violently shivering), and nearer the end of the day (my GF had to have an IV drip so we had to wait around there all day to see if it helped her) an old lady was called up and as she was walking past she said she had been there since 8 in the morning and they had literally forgotten about her.

One of my friends has an issue with kidney stones, they build up and he has to have surgery to get them out. He had a procedure booked for I don't know how long, went to the hospital and they told him they didn't have any beds left and he had to wait another week.

The Jewish General has now been instructed to turn away off-island patients. It has the best cancer treatment facility of any hospital, so people with cancer are now instructed to kindly fuck off.

The new, mega hospital in Vendome is waaaay over budget and time, and people (particularly old people) can't even get to it from the metro station right near it!

I'd love to move to Vancouver...

I don't know about the rest of Canada, but Quebec's health system sucks compared to the Australian system. It's a goddamn joke.

My girlfriend and I got a bad case of gastro a few months back, so we went to a walk in clinic. We had to line up at 6:30 in the morning so we were first in line. Waited for 1 hour before they let us inside, another hour before they started calling patients, went into triage, waiting another 20 minutes for the doctor (whom misdiagnosed her when she was getting mono a month later) to finish his little chat out the door to finally see us. Charged us each $20 for our goddamned sick notes (which was the real reason we actually wanted to go). All up, it took about 4-5 hours. So yeah, we didn't get charged for the consultation, big fucking deal.

Back in Australia I got food poisoning once. I had moved not long so wasn't familiar with any doctor offices around. Opened yellow pages (it was a while ago) found a GP down the road, made an appointment that day, went down there at about midday, probably waited about 10-20 minutes, she diagnosed me, gave me a doctor's note for work, and I paid about $30 for the consultation. It took less than an hour.

In Quebec, it's nigh impossible to get a GP, and if you do get one and if you need to see the doctor, it can take months to wait for a simple appointment. For everything else you have to go to the horrible walk-in clinics.

Having said that, I'm still glad I don't have to rely on the US health system, but goddamn I miss Australia for many reasons, this being one of them.

I know this is a running world joke due to the popular mass production American beers.

But a lot of people dismiss America as a whole because of this joke and I feel it's important to point out that America actually has a thriving and amazing microbrewery culture that produces beers equal to any in the world.

The problem is when microbreweries get to a certain size, they almost always sell out to a larger company and the product deteriorates in to the "perfect always same taste" precision of the mass production beer, losing any charm or personality the beer used to have. As it now needs to be consistently marketable.

The other factor is once these beers do get sold off, you often lose the original brew anyway, you just end up buying a locally made brew with "expert consultants ensuring the same taste", except it never is the same taste because they use local ingredients which inherently have a different flavour, missing the whole point of world beer in the fucking first place.

Basically a few giant beer corps rule the world and wreck everything, turning a beverage that should be on par with wine in to something very misunderstood and generally accepted as a low classing alcoholic drink.

If you want good beer in any country, not just America, the situation is the same, you need to go the micros who still employ the passion and respect the skill takes. Hence I declare the joke no longer relevant.

I can't be sure, but that deer looked pretty young. I wonder if it had been abandoned by it's mother after getting caught in the lights, (or when the cop showed up with a knife). This seemed like a case where animal control probably should have been called and/or consulted. The deer may be injured or abandoned, so letting it 'free' might not be the best thing to do for it.
I'll just hope I'm wrong and it's just a small species of deer that was stiff and not a hurt baby one.