VideoSifts best asset imo is its community which has been created through comment threads. It's the one thing here that works well and what separates itself from other sites(imo). We already have to deal with enough clutter in the threads as is(@siftbot i'm looking at you). Ideally maybe it could add some content although nothing that couldn't be done with a hyperlink or url and even then are we left with a few comments and a giant image that just wrecks the flow? I see this at other sites. To often a persons way to state a snarky opinion. One they wouldn't state normally but with such an easy vehicle they have no problem doing it. Embedded images are so "look at me" that they just bully the rest of the thread(imo). It's easy enough for someone to derail a comment thread with just a comment(A former sifter was quite good at it). I think it will be WAY more easy to do with embedded images. It's just to easy to abuse. Do we really want to fool with the one thing that works well on this site. Anyway the idea bothers me so much that it's possible my thinking is clouded. Feel free to check my head on the subject

-edit- It seems i am repeating myself a bit Sorry for that)

What I mock are the institutionalized versions of spirituality...organized religions. They all have stories/mythos that, when looked at from outside, are simply silly and ridiculous...and I often oblige by ridiculing them. They are also all quite dangerous, easily abused and, IMO, a net drain on society/humanity. I did not ONLY mock religion though, there were many valid points expressed, but with too much snark for your taste.
That said, I will apologize for being rude, even though it was all in jest. While I have no respect for the ideas/stories I discussed, I was not trying to upset you. When you proselytize here, posting walls of scripture, it often gets my hackles up right away and I get snarky. Think of it as a balanced equation...when you add religious positive, it should be balanced with religious negative...religious respect/religious disrespect. I would think you would expect that reaction from many regular sifters by now. But wouldn't you say that's just how god made us? ;-)
Don't take it personally.
EDIT:...and keep in mind, if you're really secure about something, you can always joke about it.

Actually, @ChaosEngine's comparison to online banking is exactly analogous to this situation. Her pics were hacked from her account. Thus, the day that your account is hacked and your identity is stolen...why are you online banking? That's a great way to get all of your money stolen. You really should have known better. If you end up homeless with no money, it really was your fault for not protecting yourself better.

You and others are correct that it does indeed present some level of risk to take nude photos of yourself at all, but all things in life present risk. If you don't want bad things to happen to you, maybe you shouldn't ever leave your house, log on to the internet, or talk to anyone. Of course, that's wildly unrealistic. The way that you present yourself makes it seem like you're callously taking this argument too far.

In contrast, @SDGundamX has taken a pleasantly moderate viewpoint on this, and I feel more enlightened from reading his posts and considering the moral ambiguity. I just wish he didn't get snarky at the end, and be 'dismayed' that people would criticize those who take the opposing stance =P.

All of the arguments aside, I appreciated her rebellion against this negative situation, and I hope that this tasteful video does good things for her.

Total fake P.R. campaign for the police dept, made by the police on the clock with public funds (not being snarky, they admitted it today). Also as mentioned, TERRIBLE driving skills displayed; hands off the wheel, not looking at all, etc.
I'm getting tired of these faked 'see, there are good, fun cops' videos that keep turning out to be completely staged by P.R. departments. Sorry, no upvote here.

Snarky Mark

Well, by that measure, I COULD think you were a complete snarky douchebag first, making personally insulting attacks for no reason other than you disagreed with my position...but where does that kind of thinking leave us?

As I still see it, you made a mistake in your logic, I said so and calmly explained how without name calling or insults (which continue in my direction). I don't see that as rude or insulting in any way, I'm sorry you do (but still don't get why).

Allow me to explain again, calmly, since you still don't seem to see my point...the cop started the stop with some attitude IMO (and not a helpful attitude), and much more important, he continued with the stop after seeing there was clearly no problem he needed to solve. If he was simply being a 'good guy helping' he would have nicely said 'OK sir, just making sure everything's OK.' and both gone on their way, not 5-6 minutes of posturing and snark.
If that doesn't convince you he wasn't just being a good guy, but instead was looking for something to cite the driver for, or a best exerting his power by 'holding' him without cause, nothing will.
It may have been his original reason for stopping the first time, even the second, but is evaporated the instant it's clear there's no problem, BEFORE he asks for ID and proof of insurance. That action denies the 'just trying to help' theory, it's not a 'helpful' action in any way. To me, that's applying logic, not telepathy.

If you really feel I'm a troll, please don't feed me, ignore me for gods sake! It's that simple. I would only ask that you note that I'm not the one of us who devolved into personal insults, nor will I simply because I disagree with your position. That's what trolls do. ;-)

I hope I'm never famous. I hear you turn into a complete asshole.

ps. If some internet random told me how to do my job they'd better expect a snarky comment offering suggestions on where they could put their opinion.

Looking forward to seeing some enthusiasm behind streamlining the site with a view to making the place appealing to new users.

Many people in the past (not surprisingly, on threads that began and ended with a ban-party followed by a snarky remark by dicks with scripts who can't keep their dysfunctional bullshit in-check such as, "Gawd, can't you read the rules?!") have suggested doing so to curtail spam-

I especially enjoy having the chat-room open to all-comers (good call) and @warmth, You have some great ideas and enthusiasm, Thank You.

Fair enough and I apologize for being snarky towards you in my comment. You were coming across like my brother-in-law who can be insufferable at times.

This is pretty funny for a lot of reasons, the biggest being all the people involved are so obviously not cat owners nor have they even bothered to understand cat behaviour.

First of all, the snarky comments at the end of the video, actually, it's not about wanting to believe my cat needs me, I'm very well aware it doesn't need me, that has no correlation to loving me. I appreciate that's just the person writing this script but it puts an underlining tone that cat owners are delusional and sets people up to believe the experiment was a "success", even with the little bite about it not being conclusive.

Not all cats are the same, the beauty of them is precisely their individuality! Breed also plays a very large factor and so does upbringing, not to mention social behaviour of the animal in question. Let's ignore that cats are evolutionarily independent and dogs/babies are not.

Why would a cat care if its owner left momentarily? It is not built to care about such a frivolous event, it takes notes of it (which btw, no other animal was capable of and the narrator incorrectly says the cat is distracted while it distinctly watching the owner leave) and carries on, the situation pans out.

Likewise when the owner comes back, the cat again takes note of this and because it was rather brief, it resumes carrying on its business. This wasn't some "OH MY GOD WHAT DO I DO WITH MY LIFE!??!?!" drastic event. Quite frankly, the cat has the most intelligent behaviour.

The reason it check outs the stranger is because it's an *unknown*, cats don't immediately trust *anything* until they've inspected it. If they had replaced that stranger with a paper bag, the reaction would have been the same. It's not that it is ignoring its owner, it's that it knows its owner is safe. It is inspecting a potential threat.

Cats are simply not basic enough to compare in this experiment and their evolutionary traits are directly opposed to these rather bias tests of affection.

Not to be too snarky, but they did make it pretty fucking easy to get rid of the tabs. Settings | Configure inbox | check or clear the tabs you want or don't want.

Clear them all but "Primary" (which doesn't appear to be clearable anyway) and you're back to the old look.

i figured it best to bring the convo to your page.
i have derailed enough threads this past week alone.
would be impolite and rude to keep tramping through the china shop willy nilly.

i think i am starting to understand where you are at.
of course i am presuming,but im gonna go with frustration.
anger and outrage to what is being done to the people of syria.

i can relate to that.it is an outrage.
it is heartbreaking.

we disagree on how to proceed.
i am not here to change your mind.

i am here to talk to you as a man.
to maybe help you understand how your passionate posts may be perceived.
your last one i found impertinent,insulting and rude.

if i had to paraphrase this is how i read your last comment on the raytheon post.
"how can you all be so fucking blind?are you all a bunch of fucking pussies?dont you SEE what that man is doing?and you fucking pansies want to talk? you are all retarded,stupid and have no idea what is going on!"

i deleted half my commentary because it really was just me ripping you apart.
and that would not be fair to you and it would be just as insulting.
your post really pissed me off.
but we have talked before.
we disagree more than agree but we have always been civil and i appreciate the time you take to respond.

so the point of me coming to your page is to point out that you are talking to actual humans.
you called me a pussy.
you implied that this situation only bothers you and anybody who came to a different conclusion in regards to how to proceed in syria was not getting the plot.
was that your intent?
did you actually MEAN to imply that anybody who disagreed with a military resolution was a pansy?

well..i dont think so.
i think you are just really passionate about this and frustrated that nothing is being done.
outraged at the violence being perpetrated upon innocent people.

i feel ya.i truly do.
and i would be willing to bet the very people you chastized as being weak in their approach feel you as well.

the first thing we need to address is the fact we are all armchair quarterbacking.we have no influence nor power to dictate what happens in a country on the other side of the planet.
so basically all our bickering and arguing is a cathartic release for a situation that is horrid,horrifying and complicated.

the second is really just questions i would like to ask (and you could promptly tell me to go fuck myself).

1.how would a limited strike upon assads regime change anything that is happening on the ground?

this is really the only question you have not answered and to me it is pivotal in understanding your logic.

i have my suspicions but i await your answer.
and my apologies if i cam across snarky.
i was angry at the time.
till next time.
namaste.

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.

Way to blame the victim. Regardless of how snarky she was, no matter how counter productive she became, dragging her off is what you should have focused on. Instead you end up looking like you're rushing to the defense of thin-skinned guilt-riddled Texas GOP legislators.

Miss, you're not helping.

As much as I might agree with you, being snarky, sarcastic, and ranting isn't the way to advance your case. All you're doing is providing the opposition with easy ammunition and an easy reason to dismiss you.

She said she had something more eloquent prepared, I would have rather heard that.

Sorry, this isn't bravery.