HELLO, ORANGE BOX.

GOODBYE, GPA.

No problem. Now if we could just get more sifters in there next time...

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Sorry about bouncing on you earlier, I had to run quickly. Next time.

fix for your video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-968290947382990166&q=A+Gentlemen%27s+Duel&total=57&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=19

dude, it's still alive.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
*dead

nah, it's just from one of those "carve your pumpkin" sites:
http://www.theoworlds.com/halloween/
I drew the picture, lit the virtual candle, did a screen capture, and saved it as a jpeg.
Though next year I may do one like this for real!

In reply to this comment by rembar:
DUDE! Is that your actual pumpkin? Sick!

Got my first star rank, ftw.

you're welcome, Dune Kitty!

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Thanks for the save! I love Clapton...

In reply to this comment by firefly:
Clapton expire? Oh No, no, no...
*save

vote how you like, man. you downvoted, i didn't vote.
i don't know what i can say other than people have different policies on voting, and the real world is more important than this video and/or its vote total.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
It is very much irrelevant what percentage of this guy's total output this video happens to represent. We're judging the video, period, or do you think a downvote counts as a panning of somebody's entire career? It's VideoSift, not Person'sContributionToTheWorldSift.

The factual errors he made were directly relevant to the argument he was making, and weakened it beyond all reasonable expectation IMO. Again, arguments are made based off evidence. He got important parts of the evidence wrong, and so I think his argument was very poor.

*shrug*, I don't know what else I can say other than I thought it was a crap video, and so I downvoted it.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this video is like 0.002% of this guy's output, not even the whole lecture, so already we're judging something totally out of context and not representative of his entire life.

add to that the fact that if there's 9 rotten apples and 1 good apple in a bowl, the good apple still tastes good.

i wouldn't say 'the whole bowl is fine by me'

90% wrong, therefore only 10% flies for me. In this case i found the 10% very important. the mistakes he made didn't negate the argument. correct what he said, and the 10% is still true.

i just have this ability to separate things.


In reply to this comment by rembar:
Arguments are based on fact, Mink, not the other way around. Sure, one or two bloopers here or there is ok. He made some doozies in there.

90% wrong and 10% right, and that'll fly for you? Wow.

this video is like 0.002% of this guy's output, not even the whole lecture, so already we're judging something totally out of context and not representative of his entire life.

add to that the fact that if there's 9 rotten apples and 1 good apple in a bowl, the good apple still tastes good.

i wouldn't say 'the whole bowl is fine by me'

90% wrong, therefore only 10% flies for me. In this case i found the 10% very important. the mistakes he made didn't negate the argument. correct what he said, and the 10% is still true.

i just have this ability to separate things.


In reply to this comment by rembar:
Arguments are based on fact, Mink, not the other way around. Sure, one or two bloopers here or there is ok. He made some doozies in there.

90% wrong and 10% right, and that'll fly for you? Wow.

no i don't have much time for training. what i mostly do, is that i train (and instruct) in taijiquan. the club also has a sanshou team, so i have done a tiny bit of that, but i feel that when it comes to actually being hit and hitting someone, my interest is more academic. hehe. i am too old, and i need all my fingers alive for my job (as a composer, at the piano).
i also did 2-3 years(?) of aikido, and then some medieval european fencing with sword and buckler... and fencing is actually what i miss the most so when i get the time again, i think i want to start training more fencing and taiji sword as well.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
From order of most to least experience, for unarmed martial arts:
Brazilian jiu-jitsu / Submission grappling
Judo
Boxing
Muay Thai
Kickboxing
Wrestling

By this, I mean I'm a lazy sub grappler, a shitty striker, and an even worse standup grappler. Hahah, but I still love doing it.

I have also trained krav maga, wing chun, hung gar kung fu, and aikido for varying amounts of time, but I don't consider them "arts I know" for various reasons. I remember you sifted that old-school GJJ vid, do you train BJJ or something?

In reply to this comment by lavoll:
upvote for rembars comments. but now i have to ask, what art(s) do you do know, rembar?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Love your new avatar.

Thanks for the story-so I was right about the labia connection! I'll have to find another video about the entrapment idea..

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Seph, it isn't quite so Freudian as all that, but still a rather interesting story. From Sarracenia.com:
"The true reason that Venus is part of this plant's name due to the dirty minds of the kooky naturalists and nuserymen (such as John & William Bartram, Peter Collinson, William Darlington, Arthur Dobbs, John Ellis, and Daniel Solander). When they looked at the plant, they saw in its amazing behavior and attractive form (two red, glistening lobes, surrounded by hairs, sensitive to the touch), something that reminded them of female genitalia of their own species. Indeed!

Amongst themselves, this cabal of learned perverts referred to the plant as a "tipitiwitchet" (or "Tippity Twitchet"). It was subsequently assumed by historians that this was a Native American term, but linguistic experts have eliminated that as a possibility.

Tipitiwitchet, it appears, was a naughty euphemism of their own devising. I like to imagine a few of them coining the term one night as they were slamming down beers in a pub or in a sumptuous study. I'm guessing that the originator of the term was probably John Bartram. For while you might expect a scientist to express wonder or astonishment upon seeing the plant, Bartram wrote to Collinson on 29 August 1762 that "my little tipitiwitchet sensitive stimulates laughter in all ye beholders"."

dude, i said that all along, it's their site, they can do what they like. personally i wish they would just get on with it instead of debating, because clearly they just want to get on with it anyway.
but since they asked...

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Mink, dude. Let it slide, man. All the arguing in the world ain't gonna gitcha nothin' for now. And I personally think it's unfair to wag a stick at Dag just yet. He's only doing what he thinks is best for the site. So we're not a democracy. Big whup.

I'm of the opinion that our community is solid enough that all the silly comment up-voting and comment down-voting a few months of trials could entail will not somehow drive us apart and bring us at each other's throats.

It's not worth fighting over, especially before the system's even been tried. Let it go, brah.

*sigh*, dangit, my pratfall went to the wrong person. Or siftbot. Sorry, I'll correct that.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Sifty, you have the wrong person! Seriously, put that cannon away before you put somebody's eye out. Sheesh.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
JOHN CONNOR, COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE.

LOL... huh?


In reply to this comment by rembar:
Sifty, you have the wrong person! Seriously, put that cannon away before you put somebody's eye out. Sheesh.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
JOHN CONNOR, COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE.