So, a bit of a case study of the dereliction of duty performed daily by Media News Head fucks...Note the smug, editorializing tone, the poorly-written and leaning script ending in snide quips....TYT has obviously taken cues from the worst of what the media has become-A bunch of propaganda monkeys on par with Joe Goebbels' little media machine post-Weimar.

Fcuking national news-A festering lump of necrotic flesh.

Honestly, if you lived in a country where 80-90% of the population believed that invisible unicorns dictate your lifestyle based on a poorly written book penned in some backwards country over 2000 years ago, and tell you what their book tells you is morally wrong and right, and tell left-handed people they can't marry, and look at you with scorn when you tell them you don't believe in unicorns while they tell you that you'll be stabbed by unicorn horns for eternity for not believing, you'd eventually get to a point where you want to go to the top of a mountain and scream "Are you people fucking mental?!?".

I appreciate that there are moderates who believe both religion and science can co-exist, but at the same time, they don't shout down the fundamentalists when they think that creationism should be taught in schools like it's some kind of science that would actually hold up to scrutiny. The moderates also don't tell the "god hates gays" crowd that god also wants you to stone your kids for misbehaving but you don't follow that rule now, do you? I honestly don't care to offend people, but at the same time I think bible-inspired nonsense (like New York's gay marriage downvote yesterday) HAS to go in this country, and I'd love to see it in my lifetime if at all possible.

That's why I love the Internet and Videosift. I don't care to make people stop believing in some god. I want people who do believe in some god to stop promoting hate and fear inspired by some old work of fiction. The way I see it there are two ways to make *those* people understand our point of view. Videos that help explain the logic and reason of life and science is certainly the more caring route. The other route, unfortunately, is videos that ridicule. Just like the older kids ridiculing the younger kids for believing in Santa Claus. I'm honestly not sure which is more effective, though I prefer the former, of course. It's a shame that moderates get caught in the crossfire, but Videosift provides both of those routes, and I will continue to upvote them both until the population of America shifts severely in favor of less organized religion, and less bible-inspired hate and fear.

I never played CoD for the multiplayer, so I won't get into that, but I have to admit I was really disappointed with the singleplayer, considering how I expected this to be at least as good as the predecessor. I was especially disappointed with the story and the dialogue - it just seemed so way off from MW1. Specifically, I have to say that General Shepherd is one of the most poorly written characters I've seen in any game recently, and unlike MW1, almost all dialogue reminded me of wannabe cool-dark tough-guy dramatics.

There were a couple of moments that I really liked, such as endings to Favela, the beginning (right after the nuke) and the end of the West Wing level (the homage to The Rock), and the part right after the boat chase near the end, and ironically enough, I liked most QTEs, which I usually hate in any game. But above all my main gripe with MW2 was how chaotic and frantic the combat gameplay felt (I guess that's what Yahtzee was referencing with "constantly having to look left and right"). I just don't understand how in Spec-Ops, the defense missions are real easy for me even on Veteran, while in SP, I died some 20 times defending the safehouse in one of the last levels on Regular difficulty. And if the AI had been really smart, that hadn't been a problem, but instead it's just that the game throws too many enemies at you.

Oh, and the snowmobile chase sucked. A lot

Cool-DD throws stuff at me he thinks I might be interested in seeing, it's usually not my cup o' tea and I bust his balls for it-he's a hep cat I keep on the short list of "gotta meet ya, yer close to me."

I have to admit to you O, that I was playing the brown-nose card with my comment to you...I dinna really get the jyst of the spirit of your beef with the kid when DD threw it my way......Hey, I'm trying to rebuild bridges, what can I say??! Thanks

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, that little affair... I had forgotten about it by now. I just found him juvenile and unfunny. I must be getting old. Fuck it anyway, I care about other things now.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Sorry mate...dinna read the fine print! Dotdude thought I'd get a kick outta your appropriate dealings with this user....I appreciate that labels placed upon folks are sufficient to satisfy the personal inabilities of others to process information poorly written, yet easily understood upon dissection.

Uhh, the guy is obviously a dickhead. He deseverves what he gets...If it were me, I'd have him flensed and sold for soapfat. Is this user even still here??...(I have trouble with all the thingys on my hobbled account, been a while, gotta get back in the groove).


In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
I do not appreciate your trolling behaviour.

*ban

Oh, that little affair... I had forgotten about it by now. I just found him juvenile and unfunny. I must be getting old. Fuck it anyway, I care about other things now.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Sorry mate...dinna read the fine print! Dotdude thought I'd get a kick outta your appropriate dealings with this user....I appreciate that labels placed upon folks are sufficient to satisfy the personal inabilities of others to process information poorly written, yet easily understood upon dissection.

Uhh, the guy is obviously a dickhead. He deseverves what he gets...If it were me, I'd have him flensed and sold for soapfat. Is this user even still here??...(I have trouble with all the thingys on my hobbled account, been a while, gotta get back in the groove).


In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
I do not appreciate your trolling behaviour.

*ban

Sorry mate...dinna read the fine print! Dotdude thought I'd get a kick outta your appropriate dealings with this user....I appreciate that labels placed upon folks are sufficient to satisfy the personal inabilities of others to process information poorly written, yet easily understood upon dissection.

Uhh, the guy is obviously a dickhead. He deseverves what he gets...If it were me, I'd have him flensed and sold for soapfat. Is this user even still here??...(I have trouble with all the thingys on my hobbled account, been a while, gotta get back in the groove).


In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
I do not appreciate your trolling behaviour.

*ban

only a very small part of Christianity attempts to teach people to get along with each other. The rest of it is doctrine set up to encourage obedience to centralized power. This is all terribly ironic, since in the small portion of the bible actually dedicated to the teachings of jesus it presents the notion that because of jesus, anyone and everyone can have a direct connection to the magical abusive drunken old guy in the sky. Jesus spent much of his teachings tearing down the notion of centralized authority, and controlled access to spirituality.

Christianity became the political tool that we see today back in 325 when Roman Emperor Constantine paid a bunch of religious leaders to vote on which documents were representative of Christian faith - as long as they left room for the Emperor to be part of that power structure. It's much easier to control the people if they all worship the same god, instead of having multiple gods all with different agendas.

There's this small little bit of good stuff in the bible which is a decent chunk of what jesus says. The rest is filled with genealogies, tales of war, killings, an angry god, and Paul of tarsus, calling on the newly enlightened Christians to maintain the oppressive and intolerant orders of the old testament. All of that contrary to what jesus claimed was the entire purpose of his time on earth. Jesus talked about how his purpose was to do away with all of those old laws, and to create a new method of gaining favor with his dad (who is also somehow himself).

The bible itself is so clouded with mountains of useless if not dangerous and contrary garbage that people use to justify their own hatred. If the bible really was there to create a moral compass for people, it would be much, much shorter and clearer. It is quite possibly the most poorly written instruction manual ever created, and I've read some really terrible Engrish manuals before.

There are 1189 chapters in the bible. Does it really take 789,626 words to say "don't be a dick"? you'd think that the creator of the universe would make better use of text, and possibly reveal some genuinely useful information, like the nature of viruses and bacteria, techniques for better agriculture, methods of international diplomacy that don't involve "shoot first, ask questions later", or even something as basic as "slavery is bad".

Clearly there are benefits from having faith, people who have a deep faith tend to live morally righteous lives, and people who "find" faith, tend to right their wrongs. The ten commandments are just a good set of ideas to follow to live longer. The problem I have with faith, most religions for that matter, is that the stupidest people seem to be attracted to it, as its pointed out in this video. It's all a crutch, though. A place holder for your decision making process. Any thing the bible can tell you, could have been just as easily produced by your own mind. The want to act better, the urge to live an honest life... It's all there in front of you and a book has little to do with it.

Most of the arguments for why a "God" exists are baseless and easily refutable... but you assume the person you are dealing with is on the same level of willingness to understand that you are or that you need them to be in order to make a meaningful decision. The biggest problem, and this stands for all humans, is that you can't reason with the unreasonable. People who are stupid enough to blindly follow some poorly written, and poorly re-written book are lying to themselves anyways, and probably have no interest or aren't capable of understanding logic and evidence.

This video is really for the benefit of people who already know that you can't prove "God" exists, What they need to do is make a video explaining how to snap the masses out of this 2000 year brain washing. I'm thinking something with a lot of colors and pictures of animals.

>> ^Dufaeth:
And clearcut the national parks!


Clear cutting? What are you talking about? Clear cutting is generally an old practice.

Please see High Grading.

Clear cutting is has much in common with the violation of the Commercial Whaling ban. Companies will search for loop holes to subvert poorly written laws.

^ He's also claiming that every penny lost is Obama's direct responsibility (which could only be true if we'd gone entirely to a planned economy instantly, and Obama had unilateral control of said plans), and seems to forget that 2008 was a complete bloodbath on the stock market, and that the U3 unemployment on Jan 19th, 2009 was 7.2%...

He's got a lot more wrong with him than just thinking an occasionally honest person like Shep Smith saying maybe this one thing Obama's DHS Secretary did wasn't really an evil plot makes Shep into some sort of unthinking, unreasoning sock puppet for Obama.

He thinks Obama is so powerful that he can control the economy, even before he became the Democratic candidate for President, and that he's using that power just to scare people into agreeing with his policies, because while he can control the world economy, he apparently can't convince lawmakers to pass even moderate bills any other way.

QM's mind is apparently trapped in some poorly-written sci-fi fictional universe where the only fixed law of nature is that all bad things are caused by Democrats.

I'm actually really amazed at how polarizing this movie is... I've brought it up to a number of people in the past and find that unilaterally people either love it or hate it. The Comic thing is kind of irrelevant since most people haven't read it, but I still stand by my assessment that the movie's lore is a lot tighter than the comic's. I just find the comic poorly written, whereas this was like a very good episode of the X-files. No Proust mind you, but very well written for a bit of cinematic fun.

>> ^gwiz665:
so people don't hoard crappy sifts.

If they're crappy, why would they be worth hoarding? No one is hoarding anything. Users post up videos they think are sift worthy. Just because you don't think the title is as clever as something you could come up with, or the tags are poorly written, doesn't mean that the video is crap, or that the user who initially found it shouldn't be recognized for doing so. How many top 15 videos have you seen submitted straight from ScrapeUp? How many are yours?

Users submit videos to VS for all sorts of reasons, but mostly to share. Sometimes, though, they will submit a video for no other reason than they personally like the video and want to keep a link to it somewhere online. I know I have.

This beautiful animation is a perfect example. I kept that link in a folder on my desktop for months before submitting it, because I knew that it wouldn't sift easily, if at all. As you can see, it did not sift, and sat in my pqueue for months, and even after being promoted, it still didn't make it. But while it sat in my pqueue with 3 votes for months, there was no way I was just going to kill it. I liked it and I wanted to be able to find it easily so I could show it to other people when I wasn't using my own machine.

Your notion that PQueues are some sort of personal hoard of great videos that you can magically turn in to Top 15 material is a fallacy. For the most part, they are collections of videos that the submitters liked but failed to sift for any one of a vast number of reasons, most of which don't involve the title or tags.

>> ^Trancecoach:
^And what do you advocate? That everyone pay the same percentage of their income? It ain't gonna happen. Thing is, the tax code is so poorly written that absurdity rules the day.. And if you think that bailing out the banks for $700 Billion isn't socialism, then you're too far gone to even have this debate.


Problem is your third sentence. You can't understand fairness in the tax code because you won't allow yourself to. Sure, its absurd, but taking more from the rich and giving more to the poorer is socialism. Still not rocket science. I'm sure you can figure out the only solution if you try hard.

^And what do you advocate? That everyone pay the same percentage of their income? It ain't gonna happen. Thing is, the tax code is so poorly written that absurdity rules the day.. And if you think that bailing out the banks for $700 Billion isn't socialism, then you're too far gone to even have this debate.

In reply to this comment by wjolson:
I can't tell if your discription is that poorly written in purpose or if you just collected and ate alot of paint chips as a child.


I can't tell if your description is that poorly written on purpose or if you collected and ate a lot of paint chips as a child.