Far from being a "non-word", orientate is common usage in British English. Orient/orientate is one of those words where users of each form tend to regard their own as correct, and grumble about users of the "incorrect" form, but like so many such terms, both are correct. Orientate has been in use since the mid-19th century, according to Etymology Online.

As for aesthetic appeal, that doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not something is a word. You may not like it, but that's just a question of taste and context. It only sounds clumsy to those who don't live in places where it's commonly used; I'd be pretty confident in saying that "I oriented myself" sounds just as odd to a BE speaker as "I orientated myself" does to an AE speaker.

I used to have a job fetching new roles of paper for big industrial printers. As best I can recall, each one contained a 22-inch wide by 90 mile long piece of paper, weighed in the neighborhood of a ton and was strapped to a palette. If you got the wheel of the palette jack stuck in the crack separating the freight elevator from the hallway, it was a problem. If you were unusually clumsy and let one topple over onto its side, it was a very big problem.

Interesting video. I always thought that type seemed like a bad design because they seem big and clumsy. Often struggling with the American system where one prong is larger I now appreciate them more. Don't get me started on USB cables. I think I fit those right at about 10% on first attempt.

I actually agree with this. To melodramatic and they were way too fast and "aggressive" in their approach of the dog. A good deed, but quite clumsy and probably caused the dog more stress than necessary.

I love them!!! They seem so clumsy though, it's a wonder they don't fall out of trees.

Your question prompted me to do some research and this is what I found out after exploring that youtube channel's other videos:

Lumholtz's Tree Kangaroos are a unique Australian species that are found in select, tropical rainforests of north Qld.

"That someone would even contemplate advocating the purchase of slaves in this day and age shows just how fucked up and repugnant so-called "libertarian philosophy" is."

This is a total non-sequitur.

"I know personal property is a core tenet of libertarianism, I just didn't realised it extended to people."

It doesn't. Go peddle your clumsy straw-man arguments elsewhere.
You are in no position to talk about "repugnant" morals when you prefer 620,000 dead over paying to free the slaves.

You either actually believe that (and are morally bankrupt), or you don't and you're just trolling. Either way, your comments say more about you than they do about the argument at hand.

(Oh, and by the way, everyone is against slavery in 2014. No one is impressed by your "hatred" of it. Please.)

Yep, Aikido is a lot like that too.

It's really easy to look at an Aikido demo or class and think that it's all choreographed and one person is just being compliant. Then you try it and realise that the "compliant" person is just trying to avoid having their joints smashed.

Try the same movement with a beginner and they'll get badly hurt, and it will look clumsy and inelegant.

That said, I don't even worry about it any more. Self defence is not the only reason to train in a martial art.

Systema interests me in the way they absorb power. I don't know enough about it to say if these guys are good or not, but their movements are certainly interesting.

Then apparently you've never dived with large seals before. On land they're comically clumsy but in the water, you move as silly as they do on land, whilst they move with grace, speed and strength. Look up under-sea videos of sea lions or leopard seals. Beautiful to dive with, though you have to pay attention to their body language.

That's what I meant by the fake sentiment. It's pretending to be so deep and mature but as you say, it's just someone who's attracted to a pretty girl. And, despite pretending otherwise, this jackass is definitely judging the others on their shallow choice.

Even if you take it as bad casting or the clumsy metaphor I mentioned, he's absolutely not unique at all. Any relationship beyond one with the girl in the porno video you're watching involves more than just appearances and involves personality compatibility. Guys don't talk about this at the pub because it's weird; shallowness is, to some extent, expected. It's not a heart-to-heart discussion.

Perhaps why that's weird would be a good subject for his next poetry. As it is, this is just "hey I'm not judging you cretins for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I uniquely see beyond physical attributes and lack the social skills to realise that I'm not unique and I'm taking a pub conversation way too seriously and you guys are never inviting me out again are you?".

Bah. I'm actually annoyed now. Why has anyone upvoted this? I'm not judging you guys for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I almost uniquely see beyond the smulch.

That's a rather speculative argument your making. We don't know exactly what was and wasn't said between the bikers and the driver. The bikers alleged this dude was giving quite a bit of back and forth and we don't know exactly what threat is made to provoke him driving over the bikes and escalating the whole thing. I never said that this was caused by lane splitting I was using it as an example from my own experience to make a point about some car drivers attitude and behaviour towards us.

The impression I get (and this is just a hunch like anyone else's including YOURS) is that this dude was talking shit and the bikers initially stopped him to make it clear he was in no position to be making threats (which lets face it would have been a foolish move for anyone). It's entirely possible that this whole thing could have been diffused at that point (and maybe not we don't get to see or hear the altercation).
Maybe this dude was just scared and calling the police, maybe he was directly antagonizing them as he did so as the bikers claim.

At no point have I done anything but condemn the bikers actions, I was merely trying to elucidate a different perspective and find a more informative angle than just "these bikers be dicks". They are people too (albeit ones of dubious moral character)


Are you familiar with the concept of holding two irreconcilable truths simultaneously to gain a deeper insight?

That's what I was doing here, I'm sorry I failed to make that more clear to you (language alone can be a clumsy way to communicate)

There's a veritable mountain of historic, behavioural and situational factors at work here, one of them is the basic resentment and animosity you subconsciously accumulate against a certain kind of car driver by simply being a biker. Other include mob dynamics, lifelong neuroses and inhibition control etc. etc.

When we say things like "fag gangs with knives" and make no attempt to understand their behaviour we get nowhere. In fact its worse than that, we go backwards as the simplistic black and white level untermensch/ubermensch relationship serves simply to fuel the same kind of situation in the future. That distinction exists but only works if derived dialectically rather than dualistically. (to paraphrase you need to be a bigger less emotionally compromised man/woman than these people or it will continue to happen. It's not a matter of who's right and wrong so much as "what failed and why?".)

I keep trying to not disagree with you because to a large extent I don't, I just don't believe in fixed perspectives. Your not wrong, but it does not invalidate the majority of what I'm trying to say/do. This is how higher synthesees or argument and understanding are derived. Someone had to chime in for the other side otherwise no-ones ideas have a chance to expand, on this occasion the duty fell to me and Chingy (not for the 1st time).

Dialectic logic > Aristotelian Logic

Heh. I don't dare vote for this video yet in case my stupid Facebook account has voted for it. And i need to get my computer unbanned... phone version of vdeosift is kinda clumsy. Oh well. Rebekka rocks and hopefully a *promote is safe enough

Login trouble. And for some reason my pc is blacklisted so i am trying to sort it out via my phone which is very clumsy. I couldn't remember if i had used my facebook account to log in or not. Is it possible to merge the two logins so i can use facebook to log in to my lavoll account instead?

@ChaosEngine, I'm a big Moore fan, too. He's pretty great, isn't he? Curious what you thought of the Watchmen movie. And if you watched the Ultimate Cut or not. Now on to the more unpleasant stuff...


You wrote: "The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance."

First off, I'm not sure small "l" libertarianism creates a utopia, idyllic or otherwise, It makes very little promises in that area, because the pragmatic argument is: freedom is dangerous. And libertarianism doesn't seek to create a perfect socially engineered society. It knows human problems are messy and complex, and there's no way to solve them from a monolithic, and often clumsy, top-down approach.

As for redressable damages (wrongs being righted), well, most small "l" libertarians still believe in civil courts and even administrative roles for government, believe it or not. Even Moore thought the government would work best in an administrative role, and he was a bonafide anarchist. This video is about the more extreme anarchist perspective of voluntaryism, which is a political philosophy of non-aggression, and couldn't be leapt into overnight. So, if someone pollutes your air, you have a grievance even in a libertarian society.


You wrote: "The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate..."

Really? I could argue that the two party system holds our electorate system hostage, but let's just assume that's not true. Bush ran on a platform in 2001 that completely contradicted his policies while in office. So has Obama.


You wrote: "It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved..."

Right. Because anarchist aren't utopians. And small "l" libertarians don't want to replace a bad socially engineered political system with a new socially engineered political system. They really just want to leave it up to the people.

That was sooo adorable, I love it when Legends have Heros.

Also I like to think that Bruce Lee was drunk and clumsy all the time and just flailed around while they had an endless supply of lackys to throw at him and make him look good.

If at first you don't succeed... it's probably best to call for a tow.

Judging by this guys general demeanour and clumsy movements, I'd bet money he was very drunk.