Here the whole list.
>> ^MilkmanDan:

Yes... Where's part 1?

^ In retrospect I should have used Shep Smith. =)

In retrospect everything that's been said here is wrong. You should have pummeled her with your mighty gonad! That'd learn her.

In retrospect I can see that it's hypocritical of me to cast judgement on your howto video. If you think it's art, sure why not, it's art.

However, in the continuum of what's acceptable in thumbnail on the front page, Tori falls closer to the OK side, and your howto vid is far into the "no fucking way" side. That's apparently reason enough to have a sift summarily executed by the state.>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not substantiating mine as "artistic"...[snip]

Sadly, they'll soon be making a similar retrospective about Ebert. Can we maybe cryogenically freeze Ebert's brain?

I've been watching the FF retrospective vids again...takes me back. Thanks for posting them.

I tend to agree with him on gaming. I highly enjoy it, but in retrospect it feels like wasted time. There are plenty of things I enjoy that are more productive, so I try to find reasons not to play games.

I will admit though, World of Warcraft thoroughly enhanced my intuitive understanding of statistics and probability.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I'm open to contradiction here but I thought ant was being sarcastic...>> ^enoch:
i didnt downvote anything.
and i think you misunderstand my point.
i was defending ANT's right to choose.you gave him this credit also but then chastised him for making the very choice you gave him credit for.
i still believe you meant that tongue in cheek but it disregards ANT's faith and his belief in his god.
ANT is a devout christian.now there are many facets of christianity but ANT keeps his faith personal and to himself.
he does not push his religion on anybody,not that i have seen anyway,and to conflate Bristol Palin's indiscretion with ANT's choice is disingenuous.
she made a statement that in retrospect is laughable and reveals her lack of discipline in regards to her faith but that has NOTHING to do with my point.
ANT,for all intents and purposes,just admitted he is a virgin and is waiting till he gets married.
he takes this seriously due to his faith.that choice should be honored not ridiculed.
does this mean that i disagree with your points on the beauty or loveliness of a union between a man and women?of course not.
but that was NOT my point.
am i ignoring the abject failure of "abstinence only sex education"?
of course not but it has nothing to do with my point.
my POINT is that ANT has chosen a path based on his faith and we should honor that choice.
WE may have made different choices and for good or ill they are OUR choices to live with.
would you walk up to a catholic nun and espouse the myriad wonders of sexual endevours?
how she is missing out on so much FUN!
would you ridicule and chastize her?
no?
then do not judge the choices ANT has made,regardless if you agree or disagree,they are HIS choices.
because in the end your opinion of his choices are irrelevant.


no.
ant is devout christian.

I'm open to contradiction here but I thought ant was being sarcastic...>> ^enoch:
i didnt downvote anything.
and i think you misunderstand my point.
i was defending ANT's right to choose.you gave him this credit also but then chastised him for making the very choice you gave him credit for.
i still believe you meant that tongue in cheek but it disregards ANT's faith and his belief in his god.
ANT is a devout christian.now there are many facets of christianity but ANT keeps his faith personal and to himself.
he does not push his religion on anybody,not that i have seen anyway,and to conflate Bristol Palin's indiscretion with ANT's choice is disingenuous.
she made a statement that in retrospect is laughable and reveals her lack of discipline in regards to her faith but that has NOTHING to do with my point.
ANT,for all intents and purposes,just admitted he is a virgin and is waiting till he gets married.
he takes this seriously due to his faith.that choice should be honored not ridiculed.
does this mean that i disagree with your points on the beauty or loveliness of a union between a man and women?of course not.
but that was NOT my point.
am i ignoring the abject failure of "abstinence only sex education"?
of course not but it has nothing to do with my point.
my POINT is that ANT has chosen a path based on his faith and we should honor that choice.
WE may have made different choices and for good or ill they are OUR choices to live with.
would you walk up to a catholic nun and espouse the myriad wonders of sexual endevours?
how she is missing out on so much FUN!
would you ridicule and chastize her?
no?
then do not judge the choices ANT has made,regardless if you agree or disagree,they are HIS choices.
because in the end your opinion of his choices are irrelevant.

i didnt downvote anything.
and i think you misunderstand my point.
i was defending ANT's right to choose.you gave him this credit also but then chastised him for making the very choice you gave him credit for.
i still believe you meant that tongue in cheek but it disregards ANT's faith and his belief in his god.
ANT is a devout christian.now there are many facets of christianity but ANT keeps his faith personal and to himself.
he does not push his religion on anybody,not that i have seen anyway,and to conflate Bristol Palin's indiscretion with ANT's choice is disingenuous.
she made a statement that in retrospect is laughable and reveals her lack of discipline in regards to her faith but that has NOTHING to do with my point.

ANT,for all intents and purposes,just admitted he is a virgin and is waiting till he gets married.
he takes this seriously due to his faith.that choice should be honored not ridiculed.
does this mean that i disagree with your points on the beauty or loveliness of a union between a man and women?of course not.
but that was NOT my point.
am i ignoring the abject failure of "abstinence only sex education"?
of course not but it has nothing to do with my point.
my POINT is that ANT has chosen a path based on his faith and we should honor that choice.
WE may have made different choices and for good or ill they are OUR choices to live with.
would you walk up to a catholic nun and espouse the myriad wonders of sexual endevours?
how she is missing out on so much FUN!
would you ridicule and chastize her?
no?
then do not judge the choices ANT has made,regardless if you agree or disagree,they are HIS choices.
because in the end your opinion of his choices are irrelevant.

The less a man makes declarative statements the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.

By no means do I claim to be a Beatles expert, but here I go:

Two summers ago, I decided, having never really payed attention to the Fab Four before, to immerse myself in "The Beatles Experience." My plan for this was to simulate traveling back in time and reliving their career starting from their surprising burst of popularity all the way to their painful demise. To do this, I acquired their first US release (since, after all, I am a US citizen...) "Please Please Me." I listened to it until I got sick of it. (This took a very long time!) I then acquired their second release, and so on, and listened intently, repeating this process all the way to their end.

I found myself eagerly anticipating the next release, aching for new music while simultaneously reveling in the genius of each new acquisition. Everything they did seemed to completely surpass everything else they had previously done. Surprise after surprise after surprise. The whole exercise took nearly a year, and I can only imagine the yearning and mania which must have accompanied experiencing the whole thing in real time.

Important to note: I decided to exclude any books, interviews, retrospectives, documentaries, etc, and only listen to the music. I had heard various stories of their demise, and decided to leave out all print/visual/other media and let their music tell me the story. I didn't even read the liner notes or song credits. Just the music.

This was an interesting experiment for me, because it became apparent to me very early on that John and Paul had strikingly different musical philosophies and approaches. It was a miracle that they stayed together as long as they did. Toward the end it became painfully obvious that each new album was a struggle to contain two galactic sized musical geniuses at odds. A clear favorite emerged for me, as I'm sure did for millions of fans, and I'll reserve my opinion for some other discussion. For now, the important thing is, it's amazing that they stayed together as long as they did.

I can't listen to Let It Be. All I hear in this album is the fighting, the struggle to express differing styles and it actually makes me sad. When I see them all in the studio gelling perfectly for a common goal despite the differences which took years to ferment, I'm amazed. Even more amazing is that despite all of the opposing forces they exerted, they still managed to transcend and make beautiful music, sad as it was at the end.

Dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Batman-Arkham-Asylum-Retrospective-History but can't figure out which one is older and newer.

And I say to our fellow members of the world community: Let noone see this contest as a sign of american weakness.

I hate to say it, but in retrospect nine years later I'm hard pressed to see it in any other way. I have seen a lot of good people held hostage by fear and fundamentalism. But I hope and believe that this was a one-time occurence.

>> ^raverman:
What did they expect? it would gently push off from the side and glide in tiny circles?
This is why we don't have a Moon base - because of stupid scientists wasting money on experiements in space where the outcome is OBVIOUS.
But wait - we might see what it does to their physiology?
I say: who gives a shit! are we planning to fly to Mars on giant moths? It's hardly relevant to human exploration.


Wrong. Nature long invented a lot of science/technology well before humans "invented" it. Dismissing nature for the advancement of human science is inconceivable. Also to all you "obvious" people, what if it flew? what if it flew perfectly and elegantly? Hmmm could it be grounds for study in to improving our movement in low gravity? Everything is obvious in retrospect, thanks.

I'm glad there are scientists out there who don't listen to naysayers and actually try new things. Black swan people, black swan, will we ever learn?