Waiting for the smart ass response...

Apparently so. I still love you, Issy.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Well, just as you said bareboards was "indirectly" involved in people getting banned, such as joe "u r a cunt" dirt, you did kind of set off choggie by submitting a cat fart vi that used his name in the title. That sounds pretty similar. Not saying I didn't think choggie did not overreact. Yeah, this is a tiresome argument and I am getting bored with it. The point is, I do think you overreacted in your response as I am sure I am probably overreacting right fucking now to a fucking reversed ban about a what's-his-name user I don't give a fucking shit about. I mean, who fucking cares? He got banned wrongly, and now he is unbanned. Great success. Yay tolerance for intolerance. Yeaaaaaaaaah... did I tell you that I am in a foul mood right now?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

Well, just as you said bareboards was "indirectly" involved in people getting banned, such as joe "u r a cunt" dirt, you did kind of set off choggie by submitting a cat fart vi that used his name in the title. That sounds pretty similar. Not saying I didn't think choggie did not overreact. Yeah, this is a tiresome argument and I am getting bored with it. The point is, I do think you overreacted in your response as I am sure I am probably overreacting right fucking now to a fucking reversed ban about a what's-his-name user I don't give a fucking shit about. I mean, who fucking cares? He got banned wrongly, and now he is unbanned. Great success. Yay tolerance for intolerance. Yeaaaaaaaaah... did I tell you that I am in a foul mood right now?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

whoa dude. what an incoherent and terrible comparison.
football and boxing are sports that require skill.
The goal is to be skillful. Not to concuss someone for laughs.
This prank is pointless, stupid and murderous - not to mention it requires no skill or thinking.
It's in no way funny to watch that guy's skull bounce off the concrete.
If you're gonna be a weirdo sadist. As least be upfront about it.


Sports and pranks. Both are society-induced entertainment meant simply to solicit a response (I.e., watch me! Or pay for me!) from people. So yeah, they can be compared. I think you used the generic--"They cannot be compared"--justification more for your own comment than anything else. That has become way too prevalent these days.

When in doubt, just say those words and the comparison-poster (me) seems like he/she has no clue what they are talking about.

You mention skills? What about skills makes a dumbass sport--like punching someone in the head until he cannot stand--any less dumbass? Chess has skill too, but I didn't compare that with pranks. Because that would have been a incoherent and terrible comparison. I compared VIOLENT sports to dipshit pranks.

Here is another comparison that works. This is not a smart ass comment--I am using this to prove a point by example. Apples to oranges. Both are foods, both are fruit, both have vitamins, both are good for you...

So, just because you cannot understand a comparison doesn't mean you're right.

Btw, I can understand your downvote if you can understand my point of view.

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?

I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?

We have been here before, mr blank. We approach the world differently. I want all the facts. I want the whole story. I am not interested in propaganda, no matter what the source. I try to be intellectually honest in all my dealings, even if it is uncomfortable for me personally.

And I just don't dehumanize these public safety officers (who risk their lives daily) so utterly as to think that they will behave perfectly in all situations.

Something happened, don't you think? Why did the park cops go talk to them in the first place? Something happened and we don't know what it is.

I have no idea of how it started. It ended badly. I think it is likely that this will be used in training vids in the future, of how not to react when you, as a public safety officer, feel ... what? Disrespected? Disrespected is not a reason to arrest someone.

We're all on a learning curve. I believe cheap accessible video cameras are going to be the most democraticizing force in the world. With those cameras will come some costs that we aren't going to like, but there are some great benefits. Keeping cops honest is number one on the list.

And I think we all agree, being a smart ass is not a reason to arrest someone. Good thing, huh, blankie? (that was meant as a gentle joke, sweetie.)

>> ^blankfist:

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

1. Being a smart ass will eventually get you a fist sandwich.

2. Doing it in a bar will result in a quicker one.

3. I worked with a guy like this who I protected from getting a fist sandwich in the workplace parking lot.

4. If we'd been in a bar I would have been too late.

5. Notify St. Louis. Someone has the top of their arch.

Not to be a smart ass, but would you support military intervention in Duekoue?

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Yup. Eric's vid has a back up as well that is the same video. *isdupe >> ^jonny:

Based on the dupeof called on this video, it appears that eric's dead video is the original. I recommend using this embed to fix eric's, as the other one is cut off and has that annoying intro.
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Spelling-Bee-Winner-Hes-a-tough-interview
>> ^blankfist:
I'm pretty sure this is a dupe, but I couldn't find it.

Based on the dupeof called on this video, it appears that eric's dead video is the original. I recommend using this embed to fix eric's, as the other one is cut off and has that annoying intro.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Spelling-Bee-Winner-Hes-a-tough-interview

>> ^blankfist:

I'm pretty sure this is a dupe, but I couldn't find it.

>> ^ipfreely:

Mel Guzman could have purchased it from a pawn shop, flea market or by any other legitimate means, for all we know. Yet some of you here and on youtube are passing judgement on this person. And I "love" how the speaker makes a snarky remark about having an unemployment form.
How many of you have not had to fill out an unemployment form?
Maybe this person couldn't afford the latest machine because he's, I don't know... unemployed? Maybe he didn't know how to reformat the drives on this machine? Since all the anecdotal information tells us is that Mel got the computer recently and just turned it on.
And before you people jump on my ass... lets read upon the law of Possession of Stolen Goods.
If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Innocent possession is not a crime.. If Mel was the original thief, why would he still have the computer? Wouldn't a thief sell it quickly as possible to make money... Not hold on to it for 2 years then use it himself?
So it's okay to virtually lynch Mel Guzman... Vigilante Justice in a form of a Hacker Hipster is acceptable in Videosift world?
Videosift is liberal minded, yet there are 98 of you who just assume Mel Guzman stole this computer. You fuckers don't believe in due process before passing judgment?
And yes, it is true it's not the court of law. Yet this video has been viewed by over half of million people... What if one of these people were someone who wanted to hire Mel Guzman. Now because of some smug smart-ass douche bag, Mel Guzman will continued to be unemployed.
You know what would be true justice... If the authorities finds mp3's downloaded from Limewire and RIAA sue the speaker, because we all know Mel does not have the password to install any applications on this machine.
You bunch of phony liberal fuckers. I consider myself a center-right, yet even I know this is wrong.
Merry Fucking Christmas and Happy New Years Assholes.

>> ^ipfreely:

Mel Guzman could have purchased it from a pawn shop, flea market or by any other legitimate means, for all we know. Yet some of you here and on youtube are passing judgement on this person. And I "love" how the speaker makes a snarky remark about having an unemployment form.
How many of you have not had to fill out an unemployment form?
Maybe this person couldn't afford the latest machine because he's, I don't know... unemployed? Maybe he didn't know how to reformat the drives on this machine? Since all the anecdotal information tells us is that Mel got the computer recently and just turned it on.
And before you people jump on my ass... lets read upon the law of Possession of Stolen Goods.
If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Innocent possession is not a crime.. If Mel was the original thief, why would he still have the computer? Wouldn't a thief sell it quickly as possible to make money... Not hold on to it for 2 years then use it himself?
So it's okay to virtually lynch Mel Guzman... Vigilante Justice in a form of a Hacker Hipster is acceptable in Videosift world?
Videosift is liberal minded, yet there are 98 of you who just assume Mel Guzman stole this computer. You fuckers don't believe in due process before passing judgment?
And yes, it is true it's not the court of law. Yet this video has been viewed by over half of million people... What if one of these people were someone who wanted to hire Mel Guzman. Now because of some smug smart-ass douche bag, Mel Guzman will continued to be unemployed.
You know what would be true justice... If the authorities finds mp3's downloaded from Limewire and RIAA sue the speaker, because we all know Mel does not have the password to install any applications on this machine.
You bunch of phony liberal fuckers. I consider myself a center-right, yet even I know this is wrong.
Merry Fucking Christmas and Happy New Years Assholes.


I'm not sure anyone would hire someone who can't spell their own name.

But basically you're right unless Mel had already been proven to be the thief. And I imagine that would be hard to do once he denied it.

As has already been said this is the sort of conference where anything goes - but I'm surprised the organisers did not seek to anonymise much of the material.

Sorry I am just now respondinng---I saw your reply buried in my "thousand emails" and I reply to all logical, respectful responders.

Well said btw. I see your points. I think corrupt actions has less to do with acountability than both sides upping the ante. The protestors want to be heard, so they yell louder. Some push the buttons--and law enforcement must respond. Law enforcement must be one echleon above the protestors, or else they lose all power (It is a seesaw effect.)

And so protestors respond in kind. Even the peaceful protests are affected by the bad apples. Then you have the "smart asses" who demean real authority...

Not only that, but when threatened with "stop protestors" or "lose job and family starve" I think most would chose the political route... So, the liabilty falls more on the city, county, state, nation leaders than cops.

sadly, both sides, to me, have lost the high ground. And that includes the side of the law... Sorry for spelling poorly, I am drunk. And thank you again.

>> ^Deano:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Deano:
You gotta love the cops. Do they have some sort of worldwide conference each year where they all get together and discuss how to be complete arseholes?

If most were, I would say yes. But since most do not act like assholes, then no. However, the douche cops, rare as they may be, those who plan on ruining it for the good guys, certainly do watch each other and learn.

That's very fair and balanced of you but in my experience as someone who's been on a couple of (very anodyne) protests and based on what we've seen in the last few years, there is clearly a collective mentality of thuggery embedded in the Met Police in the UK that rises to the surface on these occasions.
I bet in this case those coppers would ordinarily consider themselves great guys. But put them in this situation and they're quick to bare their teeth. It literally becomes an "us or them" situation and they stop policing. They start making stupid decisions. They'd rather kettle people (which is undoubtedly dangerous and now subject to legal challenges) or just whack people like Ian Tomlinson. And why not? There's no one to stop them. And again there were examples of the cops not wearing their numbers - AGAIN - and after the Police Commissioner had said post-G20 that this was NOT acceptable.
There have been so many examples of Police brutality documented over the last few years, not even counting the demonstrations, that I have to conclude there's a systemic problem and not just a case of a few bad eggs turning up each time. And the main reason for this is that the lack of accountability makes it easy, and tempting, to step out of line. You're unlikely to face charges so why not? And you can always claim it was in the heat of battle and thus you shouldn't have to face any comeback at all.
Oh and the latest development is that they want to use water cannon on protestors. Which will of course also include members of the public swept up in these confrontations. I think that when you need to use water cannons you can conclude that your society is a bit fucked up.