In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
@GeeSussFreeK, @hPOD what title would you prefer?


How about "Something may or may not have happened between people of possibly different political associations and I don't feel like being trolled by someone who joined a month or two ago"?

>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to introduce the two of you.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Apparent-Rand-Paul-Supporter-Stomps-On-MoveOn-Member-s-Head?loadcomm=1#comment-1090582'>^direpickle</a>:<
br /> I don't know what comment you're reading, but it's obvious that he didn't tell him to shut up. It was clearly an accidental misspelling, as reprehensible as that is.<br></em>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Apparent-Rand-Paul-Supporter-Stomps-On-MoveOn-Member-s-Head?loadcomm=1#comment-1090540'>^GenjiKilpatrick</a>
:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD</a> <br> <br> 1. read direpickle's comment.<br> <b>2. shut up.</b><br> 3. move on.<br> <br> [heh. ^punny]<br></em>


What?

@direpickle, I'd like to introduce you to this comment by @GenjiKilpatrick:

"1. read direpickle's comment.
2. shut up.
3. move on."

You're right. An obvious misspelling.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^direpickle:
I'm not condoning what he said, but he didn't tell him to shut up. He politely suggested that he be quiet.

Let's read his comment together, shall we? Maybe you're right, let's see... hmmmm.... nope, I think point #2 still says "shut up" and not "politely I suggest you be quiet."


I don't know what comment you're reading, but it's obvious that he didn't tell him to shut up. It was clearly an accidental misspelling, as reprehensible as that is.

>> ^hPOD:

I never meant to level any sort of personal attack on you, and if I did, it was never my intention. I just disagree with modern need to sensationalize. Again, if you felt my words were personal or went over the line, I apologize.
I think we agree on one thing, what happened was reprehensible. I think we can just meet in the middle at that. We just disagree, vehemently, on what a stomp is.

You didn't cross a line, it just irked me mightily because I agree with you completely about sensationalism in media, and I was aiming to be cautious with the title (and openly not with the quip in the description).

I'm certainly happy to agree to disagree on what a stomp is.

I never meant to level any sort of personal attack on you, and if I did, it was never my intention. I just disagree with modern need to sensationalize. Again, if you felt my words were personal or went over the line, I apologize.

I think we agree on one thing, what happened was reprehensible. I think we can just meet in the middle at that. We just disagree, vehemently, on what a stomp is.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^hPOD:
Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.
Like direpickle asked, what exactly are you seeing in this video? There's a woman with her head on the ground, a guy moves his foot rapidly down, and strikes her head.
I even hear a crunch when it makes contact, though that could easily be something else.
>> ^hPOD:
In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized?
Uh, no. I'm mad that the main thing you felt was important to say was to essentially level a personal attack at me, saying I'm making something up to trying to make it look worse than it really is.
Have you considered that perhaps using the word stomp is accurate, and not an attempt to sensationalize?
It certainly wasn't my intention to, and I've asked a couple times for what, exactly, a non-sensational title for something innately sensational like this would be. I've given my reasons for why I think stomp is a pretty accurate and objective description of what happened, including by reminding you of what the definition of the word stomp is.
All you've done is said "What's happening in that video is NOT someone getting their head stomped on, once again, stop trying to make it something it's not" and added more and more personal attacks.
I knew this post would ruffle feathers, and I suspected it would result in personal attacks on me, but I more expected "you're evil for trying to make this look like it's only on one side", not "you're a liar for saying his foot made contact with her head".

>> ^direpickle:
I'm not condoning what he said, but he didn't tell him to shut up. He politely suggested that he be quiet.


Let's read his comment together, shall we? Maybe you're right, let's see... hmmmm.... nope, I think point #2 still says "shut up" and not "politely I suggest you be quiet."

>> ^blankfist:

Not nice to tell people to shut up.


I'm not condoning what he said, but he didn't tell him to shut up. He politely suggested that he be quiet.

>> ^hPOD:

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Like direpickle asked, what exactly are you seeing in this video? There's a woman with her head on the ground, a guy moves his foot rapidly down, and strikes her head.

I even hear a crunch when it makes contact, though that could easily be something else.

>> ^hPOD:

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized?

Uh, no. I'm mad that the main thing you felt was important to say was to essentially level a personal attack at me, saying I'm making something up to trying to make it look worse than it really is.

Have you considered that perhaps using the word stomp is accurate, and not an attempt to sensationalize?

It certainly wasn't my intention to, and I've asked a couple times for what, exactly, a non-sensational title for something innately sensational like this would be. I've given my reasons for why I think stomp is a pretty accurate and objective description of what happened, including by reminding you of what the definition of the word stomp is.

All you've done is said "What's happening in that video is NOT someone getting their head stomped on, once again, stop trying to make it something it's not" and added more and more personal attacks.

I knew this post would ruffle feathers, and I suspected it would result in personal attacks on me, but I more expected "you're evil for trying to make this look like it's only on one side", not "you're a liar for saying his foot made contact with her head".

Yea, it was such a brilliant post I don't know what I'm going to do with myself.

>> ^blankfist:

Not nice to tell people to shut up.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^rottenseed:
NetRunner...your headline is the equivalent of me saying "Apparent Obama supporter bashes in my car window and steals my wallet"
(true story with the window bashing and the wallet stealing)

Except your picture didn't include a guy dressed in a shirt with the Obama campaign logo on it doing the smashing.
You also haven't read the rest of the comments because we now know the guy's name, and the fact that he was a member of Rand Paul's campaign.
It's no longer "apparent", it's now confirmed.


He yelled "I love Obama" after he ran away with my wallet. Then he blew marijuana smoke in my pregnant mother's face...

and why would I read any comments? I have something to say and that's all I care about.

Translation:

I'm not tolerated because I don't agree with you.

I'm not picking a fight about anything, I'm merely pointing out that in typical modern fashion, something is being sensationalized in the name of votes or hits, or whatever have you. It worked, so whatever, the headline got the votes...the video, however, did not. What went down in that video was reprehensible, and those involved should be punished. But I maintain that the punishment should fit the crime. They should be punished for going too far, but they should NOT be punished for curb stomping a woman, since it never happened.

My commentary, by design, was to point out the title is disingenuous, at best. It wasn't meant to exonerate these people for what they did.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^hPOD:
In the future, if/when you give a more grown up, non condescending response to something you disagree with, maybe I'll acknowledge it and actually reply back to what you said, rather than how you said it.
>> ^Truckchase:
hPOD you're right, he was trying to be nice by blessing her with the bottom of his foot. I do it to my mom all the time. Keep talking, you make alot of sense.


The basis of your assertion demands condescension. You're picking a fight about something that is entirely unacceptable regardless of the semantics of the situation. I won't spend any more time on this, as doing so undermines my own unspoken assertion that your commentary doesn't deserve attention since it is, by design, a distraction from the point of the video.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are not libertarians, they are anarcho-capitalists.


Bwahah! What? That's not even close to being true.

In other news, using your feet to stomp someone is assault with a deadly weapon. I never knew that.

You're taking what I said wayyyyyyy out of context. I said it was typical of sensationalized Internet media to take something and make it far worse than it actually is/was. I do not and will not consider what happened in that video to be stomping on someones head, but as proven here, that can be argued. I do, however, feel it was out of line and the people responsible should be investigated.

This is why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people these days. You can say whatever you want, and that's that. Nothing is open for discussion or disagreement anymore.

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Objective judgment? Possibly. It is of my judgment that they went too far in what they did to her. That said, at least I'm honest about my objective judgment and am willing to admit that's what it is. I suppose others could say they didn't go far enough in what they did to her, which would make my opinion on this a judgment call.

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized? That's truly sad. I thought better of you, but I guess you're like the typical majority of Internet opinion makers -- if I disagree with you, you get mad at me for it. Oh well.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).
To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".
The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

>> ^hPOD:

In the future, if/when you give a more grown up, non condescending response to something you disagree with, maybe I'll acknowledge it and actually reply back to what you said, rather than how you said it.
>> ^Truckchase:
hPOD you're right, he was trying to be nice by blessing her with the bottom of his foot. I do it to my mom all the time. Keep talking, you make alot of sense.


The basis of your assertion demands condescension. You're picking a fight about something that is entirely unacceptable regardless of the semantics of the situation. I won't spend any more time on this, as doing so undermines my own unspoken assertion that your commentary doesn't deserve attention since it is, by design, a distraction from the point of the video.