Westy - You're saying that's okay to perpetuate and export stereotypes because that's "good marketing"? O_o?!
How is spreading stereotypes i.e. embellished prejudice a good thing?

GeeSussFreak - Who made you the authority on "who is supposed to be" or "rightly" offended?
I'm bi-racial so (while i'm not up in arms) the ad instantly reminds me of all the annoying moronic fried chicken and watermelon jokes i had to suffer thru and smile off as a child.

Please don't assume racist undertones are "harmless" simply because you personally aren't bothered. -_- ..


Like Asmo says, any american can indentify the awkwardness of one white guy giving fried chicken to wild rowdy black people to shut them up.

KFC knows this and that's why they did everything they could to stop americans from seeing it.. except for not producing or releasing it. (Like KFC doesn't know about the internet)

KFC knowingly chose to depict something that implies racial prejudice and all the things that go with it.

If it had been a group of white fans surrounded by the group of black fans and both laughed and smiled, Westy's claims of interracial chicken enthusiasm would hold water. ...But that's not the case.

KFC could have just as easily focused on the color of the jerseys and team rivalry to imply the awkwardness.

"OH no, we're all yellow shirts in this huge group of red shirts. Let's both enjoy some food! Yay!"

The ad is in poor taste. Plain and simple.

Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs? Recent history's great rivalries sounds fun. Ha... people will vote on age, but they feel there's more at stake.

despite my feelings about alex jones' wingnut positions on the trilateral commission, bilderberg, and the cfr...

i'm upvoting because the essential message the vid infers is, as 'the who' so succinctly put it, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

here are some legitimate gripes i have with obama and habeus corpus:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Guantanamo-Bagram-Is-there-much-difference
http://www.videosift.com/video/BBC-Investigation-of-Abuse-At-Bagram-Air-Base
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/

imho, the difference between bush and obama is black and white, literally... although obama can pronounce 'nuclear' ... i believe that his message of change wasn't much more than to convince the american people and the world that he was some sort of harry potter, who could fix all that was wrong simply with a wave of his big black wand

in reality, and from primarily an international perspective, he's the usa's global apology card, primarily to a western europe both worried and not-a-little-angry with america because 1. it gave them 8 years of gw bush, 2. was the sole remaining superpower in the vacuum left by the ussr's collapse, and was now viewed not as the cold war's 'great balancer' but as a post-cold war threat to both global security and international parity, and 3. through the burgeoning of instant mass communication afforded by the internet, the uneducated and largely impolite rabble of europe and the us were better able to ruffle each other's feathers, both innocently and maliciously

this two-way estrangement between the decades-long, erstwhile allies needed and continues to need to be smoothed over, and what better way than to present the world--at least on the surface--a polar opposite to bush and his ilk... a well-spoken, apparently sincere man of intelligence whose humble platitudes and defacto apologies at least try to serve as a soothing balm to the inflamed passions, old rivalries, petty grievances, and genuine concerns that had long lain dormant during the cold war, but were coaxed back to their previous vigor with the ill breath of the three enumerated items in the previous paragraph, which reput would be: 1. american arrogance, 2. a nascent eu's competitiveness and envy, and 3. the ignorance and polemics of the internet's unwashed masses

so... who 'won't get fooled again?'

DFT! stop stealing my niche!

Also, I'm so gay for Boxer, and his opponent is yellow.

Yellow and Boxer have a pretty crazy rivalry, with yellow nearly always coming second place whatever he tried.

Well, I have mixed feelings about this. Let me give a few incoherent things that are true about having seen profile comments in the comments threads:

1. It contributed to my feeling of alienation in terms of there being a sift in-crowd, because I became aware of vast circles of mutual up-vote chains where people noted going through each others queues and voting madly. Strangely enough, this didn't make me feel good about puting effort into finding things for VS.

2. It's been quite entertaining to me during odd moments of procrastination, and it helped me notice odd videos I might have missed otherwise (some of which I promoted).

3. It's clued me in to various factions/rivalries on VS that I would never have noticed otherwise.

I'm not sure if these things are mostly good or mostly bad. I guess, in some sense, I would miss it. I mean, as it is there is a mechanism for keeping profile comments private, and people can use it if they like, so I don't feel the need for the change, but I say that knowing it sounds odd given my point 1 above. I mean, it happens. My knowing about it is just secondary.

I don't take that big an issue with the image link. As kommie says, you can choose yourself to click on the link or not. And considering thepinky's and UP's rivalry, either one should be suspicious about any links sent to them by the other.

However, wishing someone a raping crosses my line. Granted, people here post similar comments about each other all the time, but always in a humorous and transparantly ironic manner. Unless there is some clever inside joke between thepinky and UsesProzac, which I doubt, I move for a suspension based on that comment alone.

It is highly improbable that this imperialist war of 1914–16 will be transformed into a national war, because the class that represents progress is the proletariat, which, objectively, is striving to transform this war into civil war against the bourgeoisie; and also because the strength of both coalitions is almost equally balanced, while international finance capital has everywhere created a reactionary bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such a transformation is impossible: if the European proletariat were to remain impotent for another twenty years; if the present war were to end in victories similar to those achieved by Napoleon, in the subjugation of a number of virile national states; if imperialism outside of Europe (primarily American and Japanese) were to remain in power for another twenty years without a transition to socialism, say, as a result of a Japanese-American war, then a great national war in Europe would be possible. This means that Europe would be thrown back for several decades. This is improbable. But it is not impossible, for to picture world history as advancing smoothly and steadily without sometimes taking gigantic strides backward is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong.

Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances.

For example: England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotyped fashion by deducing from it that national wars are “impossible.” A war for national liberation waged, for example, by an alliance of Persia, India and China against certain imperialist Powers is quite possible and probable, for it follows logically from the national liberation movements now going on in those countries. Whether such a war will be transformed into an imperialist war among the present imperialist Powers will depend on a great many concrete circumstances, and it would be ridiculous to guarantee that these circumstances will arise.

Thirdly, national wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe. With regard to Austria, for example, Junius shows sound judgment in taking into account not only the “economic,” but also the peculiar political situation, in noting Austria’s “inherent lack of vitality” and admitting that “the Hapsburg monarchy is not a political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of social parasites,” that “historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is merely the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey and at the same time a demand of the historical process of development.” The situation is no better in certain Balkan states and in Russia. And in the event of the “Great Powers” becoming extremely exhausted in the present war, or in the event of a victorious revolution in Russia, national wars, even victorious ones, are quite possible. On the one hand, intervention by the imperialist powers is not possible under all circumstances. On the other hand, when people argue haphazardly that a war waged by a small state against a giant state is hopeless, we must say that a hopeless war is war nevertheless, and, moreover, certain events within the “giant” states—for example, the beginning of a revolution—may transform a “hopeless” war into a very “hopeful” one.

The fact that the postulate that “there can be no more national wars” is obviously fallacious in theory is not the only reason why we have dealt with this fallacy at length. It would be a very deplorable thing, of course, if the “Lefts” began to be careless in their treatment of Marxian theory, considering that the Third International can be established only on the basis of Marxism, unvulgarised Marxism. But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for “disarmament,” as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat).

We must state, however, that it would be unfair to accuse Junius of being indifferent to national movements. When enumerating the sins of the Social-Democratic Parliamentary group, he does at least mention their silence in the matter of the execution of a native leader in the Cameroons for “treason” (evidently for an attempt at insurrection in connection with the war); and in another place he emphasises (for the special benefit of Messrs. Legien, Lensch and similar scoundrels who call themselves “Social-Democrats”) that colonial nations are also nations. He declares very definitely: “Socialism recognises for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to be masters of their own destiny.... International socialism recognises the right of free, independent, equal nations, but only socialism can create such nations, only socialism can establish the right of nations to self-determination. This slogan of socialism,” justly observes the author, “like all its other slogans, serves, not to justify the existing order of things, but as a guide post, as a stimulus to the revolutionary, reconstructive, active policy of the proletariat.” (p. 77-78) Consequently, it would be a profound mistake to suppose that all the Left German Social-Democrats have stooped to the narrow-mindedness and distortion of Marxism advocated by certain Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats, who repudiate self-determination of nations even under socialism. However, we shall deal with the special Dutch and Polish sources of this mistake elsewhere.

Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland. This is a cardinal political question during an imperialist war. Junius has strengthened us in our conviction that our Party has indicated the only correct approach to this question: the proletariat is opposed to defence of the fatherland in this imperialist war because of its predatory, slave-owning, reactionary character, because it is possible and necessary to oppose to it (and to strive to convert it into) civil war for socialism. Junius, however, while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war as distinct from a national war, falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.

The official Social-Democrats, both of the Legien and of the Kautsky shade, in their servility to the bourgeoisie, who have been making the most noise about foreign “invasion” in order to deceive the masses of the people as to the imperialist character of the war, have been particularly assiduous in repeating this “invasion” argument. Kautsky, who now assures naive and credulous people (incidentally, through the mouth of “Spectator,” a member of the Russian Organization Committee) that he joined the opposition at the end of 1914, continues to use this “argument”! To refute it, Junius quotes extremely instructive examples from history, which prove that “invasion and class struggle are not contradictory in bourgeois history, as the official legend has it, but that one is the means and the expression of the other.” For example, the Bourbons in France invoked foreign invaders against the Jacobins; the bourgeoisie in 1871 invoked foreign invaders against the Commune. In his Civil War in France, Marx wrote:

“The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of the classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out in civil war.”[7]

I thought the 'Upgrading to Windows XP' bit was great . Vista's been fine for me though, I've been liking it so far. Not experienced the slow performance they're alluding to...

On the other hand, this just plays in to the manufactured 'rivalry' between the two brands. All that petty squabble does is polarise the weak willed in to one end of the brand-loyalty spectrum, with no drastically real gains at either side. But, MS and Apple couldn't give two shits, they just know this feud breeds fanatics.

Hence, (in all good humour) my upvote is nullified... sorry Zif

This stuff isn't especially weird to me.

I spent a year of college living in close proximity to an African American fraternity. They had a quite similar training regimen for their pledges, though the chants were about fraternity history, values, and rivalries. Naturally the script and the moves were of higher caliber than this. The pledges became members during an hour long show held for the public. There was informal competition with the other black frat on campus to have a more impressive show with wittier insults.

Hey, you're welcome! Always happy to celebrate the accomplishments of our dedicated sifters.

You know, I actually still have my Sega CD... And I think I've got about 3 games for it. One of those childhood-rivalry-must-have deals. It's actually that bad.

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Hey Kevlar! Thanks for dropping by the shindig! and thanks for the tip o the hat!

I loved the Seaga CD ad, did they only have three games for that when it came out?I thought I saw night trap, nfl and something else. Oh well I couldnt afford one anyway

In reply to this comment by Kevlar:
A tip of me hat to you, fine sir!

Whenever you have a discussion with someone, you should ask yourself if you're in it to get your point understood, "win" or just rant. Generally speaking, I like to get my point understood. I feel I have done so in this discussion but you just want to rant. Rant away.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

In fact, here's a hint: it's "discussions" like yours (AKA spiritual verbal abuse) which creates backlash. I've no interest in that. You make some interestin points I agree with and some points I'd be willing to discuss. "America Sucks Because the American People Suck" is not one of those points.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

no, I said your point that America is in decline is not worth discussing in the context of overal perspective. We both agree. You want to skew the view so that the reason why America is in decline towards an empire is because of its people's attitude. Yet you agree that such movement is inevitable for any country. I don't care to sit around bashing America with someone who takes such great pleasure in pinning it all on the "arrogant americans". Being snide and contemptuous doesn't change or help. I'm an American. What? Because my country has serious problems (and I haven't met an American yet who isn't ready and willing to admit that and discuss it) I'm supposed to sit around beating my breast and hanging in my head in shame? What would that accomplish? Yes, millions are allowing this to happen, but millions also are perfectly aware of it and trying to do something about it. You could discuss how even though decline towards empirical attitudes has been shown to be historically inevitable, there is sstill a large faction of Americans trying to like hell to resist that decline, but you'd rather focus on the people who live in ignorance and fear. Its a matter of perspective and if I thought like you did about my own country, I'd probably give up entirely and become a hermit or another greedy "I got mine, jack" asshole.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

>> ^randomize:
One last comment: I think I may have been misunderstood. I don't want to spark a rivalry, I just feel that Videocu.lt is better for me. Less complicated, my kind of sifters, etc. It's not just the cat videos, it's kind of a train wreck of things happening to me that takes up so much time , I can't find any time to post things I want. When I found myself not looking to what you want to post, but what others will like I think my control slipped from me quite a bit. Things I like are no longer getting sifted, needing 3 or even 4 begs just to make it out, and peaking at 20 votes. And in the real-o-sphere my band is actually starting recording so my time is going to shrink even more. I didn't mean for my exit to sound so dramatized as it turned out. Think of this as a hiatus.


You still dont answer the questions in Here....why to mention specific names???

One last comment: I think I may have been misunderstood. I don't want to spark a rivalry, I just feel that Videocu.lt is better for me. Less complicated, my kind of sifters, etc. It's not just the cat videos, it's kind of a train wreck of things happening to me that takes up so much time , I can't find any time to post things I want. When I found myself not looking to what you want to post, but what others will like I think my control slipped from me quite a bit. Things I like are no longer getting sifted, needing 3 or even 4 begs just to make it out, and peaking at 20 votes. And in the real-o-sphere my band is actually starting recording so my time is going to shrink even more. I didn't mean for my exit to sound so dramatized as it turned out. Think of this as a hiatus.