I missed the Bolton match. Sad stuff, reminded me of Marc Vivien Foe. You're right that Spurs have overachieved, that's more accurate.

I have liked Carrol at times but I can only hope for his sake he's going to come good like Drogba who I knew could be awesome but just needed time to settle. Both are big, physical guys that should intimidate defenders. But only one has in his career. Guess Carroll is just too green.

In reply to this comment by Quboid:
In reply to this comment by Deano:
In reply to this comment by Quboid:
Are you a Liverpool fan? Charlie Adam has been awful lately, we miss Lucas so much. I thought I was the only knowledgeable football man here!


Nah, Spurs fan here. It's been rather frustrating to see how overrated we've been this season. This period of losses has been absolutely predictable. I think Redknapp played Modric on the left against Everton which is mind-blowingly stupid but beyond that we just don't have enough good players.

Charlie Adam is astonishing though. I wasn't sure about him either way when Liverpool bought him. I knew Downing would fail as he's always been mediocre. Looks like Adam should have stayed at the Blackpool level. And don't get me started on Carroll...


I have faith in Carroll and Henderson, I think they will come good. The money splunked on them was ridiculous and they'll never justify that but they can be good players. Downing is out of his depth and Adam, well, he's been awful and we play so much better without him. One season wonder.

Spurs are good, and they're well run. I wouldn't say they are overrated, but that they overachieved. You're not good enough for a title challenge, but you deserve top 4 a lot more than Liverpool :

I take it you saw the Spurs - Bolton match? I've never seen anything quite like that and I hope I never do again.

In reply to this comment by Quboid:
Are you a Liverpool fan? Charlie Adam has been awful lately, we miss Lucas so much. I thought I was the only knowledgeable football man here!


Nah, Spurs fan here. It's been rather frustrating to see how overrated we've been this season. This period of losses has been absolutely predictable. I think Redknapp played Modric on the left against Everton which is mind-blowingly stupid but beyond that we just don't have enough good players.

Charlie Adam is astonishing though. I wasn't sure about him either way when Liverpool bought him. I knew Downing would fail as he's always been mediocre. Looks like Adam should have stayed at the Blackpool level. And don't get me started on Carroll...

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Park worker mauled by lions on last day, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Your video, QI, featuring new contestant Barack Obama, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

no truer words have been spoken.

Well that I know of

In reply to this comment by Quboid:

Governments can't beat drug dealers, but Capitalism can.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

sure... and I was trying to clarify the point that evolution is not a 'belief', it is a 'scientific theory' that explains how the plethora of lifeforms on this planet has come about.

I make this point not to be a dick, but because its an important point to be made; evolution is exactly analogous to every other scientific theory. What does that mean? ...We will never, ever know everything about the universe, so scientists will always, always say the 'theory of evolution' and the 'theory of gravity' and the 'theory of atomic structure', meaning that contradictory and clarifying evidence should always be sought out to form a better explanation...

Evolution is the best we've got; it explains things that have happened and predicts new things we're still finding (in molecular biology, for example). It is a valuable tool in understanding where WE as animals came from, and what 'life' is. And thats all it is... the sum of our rational understanding of life.

What kind of things don't we understand about life? Well nobody (in science) has quite figured out how life got here on Earth, but it stands to reason that if the development of new lifeforms from other lifeforms over time doesn't necessitate a creator than maybe we can keep pushing back the curtain and see that the first exceedingly simple bit of amino acids with a layer of bubbles around it that replicated and divided into more bubbles with more organized amino acids (or whatever) didn't need a creator... but this is well beyond the current theory of evolution.


In reply to this comment by Quboid:
I seemed to spark off something in the thread too and I've clarified and apologised for my misleading comment. As I said in that thread, I do believe in evolution, I just also believe we don't know all that much about the universe yet.


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I'm not going to go into it, but towards your second point... to understand what has come before you, design your own investigation/experiment and gather evidence to test assumptions made on previous findings. This is all that Darwin did, this is all that Einstein did, this is all the Newton did. If you drag yourself through Darwin's wikipedia post, for instance, you'll see that the idea of evolution was around for a long time, and all he did was take a few disparate sources like Malthus' book on populations and his own finding of how species are similar to neighboring species in different parts of the world (but different from animals in the same climates in other parts of the world) and figured out a simple method for evolution... 'natural selection'.

Since the time Darwin and Alfred Wallace were around there have been incredible modifications to the story, but 'evolution by natural selection' is still the foundation for all of biology. Not only is it still the foundation, our understandings based on evolution are actively used predictively in research to form hypotheses, design experiments, and even predict things like the development of bacterial and viral strains.

I'm not going to go into it, but towards your second point... to understand what has come before you, design your own investigation/experiment and gather evidence to test assumptions made on previous findings. This is all that Darwin did, this is all that Einstein did, this is all the Newton did. If you drag yourself through Darwin's wikipedia post, for instance, you'll see that the idea of evolution was around for a long time, and all he did was take a few disparate sources like Malthus' book on populations and his own finding of how species are similar to neighboring species in different parts of the world (but different from animals in the same climates in other parts of the world) and figured out a simple method for evolution... 'natural selection'.

Since the time Darwin and Alfred Wallace were around there have been incredible modifications to the story, but 'evolution by natural selection' is still the foundation for all of biology. Not only is it still the foundation, our understandings based on evolution are actively used predictively in research to form hypotheses, design experiments, and even predict things like the development of bacterial and viral strains.



In reply to this comment by Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.

A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.

2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge

If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell* not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.


* Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.

Hi,
could you please change the title/description of your post
http://www.videosift.com/video/Female-Train-Conductor-Leaves-Mic-On
Thanks:)

In reply to this comment by Quboid:
I know this isn't the Sift party line but I agree with the Fox puppet. Paul is a great candidate, I'd vote for him if I was American, but the sad truth is, he won't win any elections. He won't win any primaries. Electability might be a stupid phrase but the puppet is right, Paul ain't got it. He's smart, logical and consistent - that's not what the voters want!'

Don't you see the chicken/egg situation with RP though? The media is saying "he's not viable" and the people are listening. Imagine if the media did a 180 and painted him as the righteous underdog...

crap, wrong button, sorry...

haha - thanks for the great comment - I love the way you clearly listened carefully to all the lyrics before commenting. Still, no upvote? despite advocating the upvote in favour of awfulness?

In reply to your comment:
“Upvote for awfulness on so many levels, people should watch it as an educational tool. Utterly unconvincing as a "down to earth" attempt, stupid as a woman's strength song and just plain sexist against women. Hey Aguilera, are you wearing those shorts because they are comfy? Right, not use your sex appeal to sell a few more songs, no. And what's the deal with treating yourself as a minority? Gender is split 50-50, so why are you referring to men's stereotyped* attitudes as if they were universal? Anyway, if our "words don't mean a thing", why did you do a song about it?

* If a guy as 3 girls then he's the man? Really? I'd consider that guy to be a sleazy bastard.

No wonder I haven't heard of Lil Kim for years, she bet her fame on this shit.”