Who made that picture for the SOPA post you did ? the Brave Heart theme was fantastic, whoever created it did a fantastic job.

From IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297703/

"Adagio" (2000) -is a ten minutes long animated miracle created by Russian master-animator Garry Bardin. He used paper folding also known as origami technique in the film because he felt that the idea of "Adagio" and its visual solution required paper as a perfect material. It took nine months to produce "Adagio". Bardin and his team of animators tried to manually move the paper figures, strange half-men, half-birds creatures, using the trial-and-error method.

"Adagio" which is a philosophical parable exploring the conflict between a hero and the crowd is loosely based on a romantic short story written by the famous Russian writer Maxim Gorky about a young man named Danko and his burning heart. In the story, Danko belonged to a tribe of strong men that were forced by their enemies to retreat into the depths of an old dark forest filled with swamps. Danko, young and brave, believed that there was a way out of dark and hostile forest, and he bravely led the people deeper inside. But soon they started to grumble. Fueled by fear and darkness, frustration and anger grew among them. Danko looked at the people and saw only hatred in their faces, and the flame of desire to save them flared up in his heart.

"This flame of love for his people became stronger and stronger, and suddenly, overpowering the sound of thunder, Danko exclaimed: 'What shall I do for my people?' And he tore apart his chest and tore out his heart and raised it high over his head. It blazed like the sun, even brighter than the sun, and the forest, stunned by this overwhelming love for the people, became quiet. Danko ran forward, holding high his burning heart, lighting the road for the people, and they rushed after him. Suddenly, the forest ended, and they emerged into an ocean of sunshine and fresh air, cleansed by the rain. Danko looked at the free land, laughed proudly and fell dead. And the happy people, filled with great hopes and expectations, did not even notice Danko's death and did not see that next to his body his brave heart still burned brightly. Only one person noticed it and fearing something, stomped on the proud heart and extinguished its flame... "

In his short amazing animation, Bardin was able to meditate on many burning issues - intolerance to different opinions and religions, ignorance and lack of desire to learn the history lessons, suspicion that easily turns to hatred for someone who stands out. It is easier to worship the dead hero than to follow him while he is alive. It is unbearable to see that someone is pure and shining – it feels great to smear them, to make them as grey as everyone else around. "Adagio in G minor" widely known as simply Albinoni's Adagio, one of the most frequently recorded pieces of Baroque music, brings tragic and sublime mourning to the film. Well, I can go on for long time about deep meaning of Bardin's images and his pessimistic outlook at the modern society but first and foremost, "Adagio" is a fabulous work of art by an Artist who is known for almost supernatural sense of material. Bardin uses the objects that surround us in everyday life - matches, ropes, wires, and paper as the characters in his animated films.

*love

Persephone, in the context of the argument, I'm assuming you're including me in what you see as the malicious portion of VS, so here are my thoughts.

I did my level best to speak to you as a person, and make points that could be argued for or against using facts and logic. (You have, in fact, corrected me at least once for an untrue statement that I made.) I quoted from papers that you yourself cited, as well as an admittedly brief analysis of the papers, including weaknesses and commentary on their own use. I did my best to avoid personal attacks, but perhaps I stepped over the line. I feel that I did not, but if I did, then I apologize.

However, I did respond in such a large volume due to several reasons. One, the level of vigor with which you defended homeopathy, compared to the level of confidence that I have in my belief that homeopathy is indefensible medically and scientifically, made me feel that I should express my position. (I responded to other sifters in comparable depth to their own comments.) Second, I like fostering discussion in my collective, which has educated me to a number of new things, and which is what keeps bringing me back to VS. And third, I responded due to a part of a comment you made:

"So, Gluonium, have you even managed to make a baby, least of all sit up in the wee hours of the night trying to soothe one screaming from pain? No? It takes a big brave heart to get through parenting the early childhood years. In case you haven't been there yet, don't be too quick to rule out what you'll try, in an effort to care for a child in great need."

That comment, be it driven or not by Gluoniom's previous comments or even my own, was, I feel, unfair and not in the spirit of level-headed discourse. It amounted to a personal attack of your own, calling into question your fellow sifter's personal experiences, or lack thereof, which added nothing to the current topic at hand. In this case, the emotional need for a parent to care for one's child has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a specific method of care. It's like saying, I'm grieving for a loved one who has passed and am dealing with that grief by visiting a psychic, you can't say psychics are bunk because you haven't lost a loved one and felt the need to see them again.

In addition to that, even assuming that your life experiences had been topical, in the context of a scientific debate, which rests upon factual evidence, most life stories are a result of the truth at best, and distractions from the truth at worst; they are not considered to be always representative of facts. It's the same reason why politicians like to tell stories about the little kids they met, it's because it's relatively easy to take a single case and use it in whatever way one wants. There's a saying among scientists: "The plural of anecdote is not data." So, especially in my collective, anecdotes do not always add something to a conversation.

So, perhaps I was in the wrong for something I wrote. I do believe that other sifters said things that did more to damage conversation than aid it. But, that being said, I feel that you also stepped out of line in your own comments.

In the future, I will certainly do my best to keep a civil tongue in my head where appropriate, although I will not stop debating issues that may upset others by virtue of their content alone. I would hope that you, and all other sifters, also take this mindset to heart.

Sorry Farhad, my point about using what works was actually in reaction to Gluonium's presumption about me having "believer syndrome". If I'd double-checked the line up of name to comment, I would have realised my mistake.

So, Gluonium, have you even managed to make a baby, least of all sit up in the wee hours of the night trying to soothe one screaming from pain? No? It takes a big brave heart to get through parenting the early childhood years. In case you haven't been there yet, don't be too quick to rule out what you'll try, in an effort to care for a child in great need.