Sorry this is so long in response--I forgot I wanted to respond and it is an ocd compulsion of mine... Seriously... I have OCD... (Now I have free time to write Yay.)

To the suspect topic, OJ Simpson was a forgone conclusion...Ramsey's parents were too. Casey Anthony's mother... Etc. These suspects were all the intense, single-minded already-formed conclusions that investigators focused on---to their tunnel vision.

A suspect is far more than just a person with a few

So what we are talking about really is what the police said? Well, reversing the situation, as you suggest, lets say the kid shot a police dog in the backyard and claimed self defense. What would the police say? I don't know and neither do you. What would his parents say? It was self defense? You bet your ass. A clean shoot? Sure. But lets say the kid brags about it and the parents find out later--they may do the right thing and snitch the child out.

But you bet your ass they would come out to little Johnny's defense early...

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.
But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The guy's a little obsessive-compulsive about it but fair enough, this is a tutorial after all. One other point- when lathering I do manage to not soap up my lips.

Seriously, what's up with that?
>> ^notarobot:

This is the kind of thing @therealblankman is talking about.
<div id="widget_2065659712"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=162506&width=300&comments=&minimized=0" type="text/javascript"></script></div>

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

My favorite Nancarrow study: http://videosift.com/video/Conlon-Nancarrow-Study-for-Player-Piano-No-6



-The guy was fascinating man..his body of work is small & insanely obsessive-compulsively impressive-

I am a compulsive head scratcher. Its like a tick. Basically I'm quite glad I have a full head of hair because my scalp is probably quite scarred.

I had to upvote. I could not look away. If I couldn't look away, then I guess this vid succeeded at being truly compulsively terrible.

>> ^Hastur:

>> ^Asmo:
I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...
Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:
You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?
And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.


Incorrect, I agree with the assertion that the purest form of democracy represents the majority of the people. But how do you resolve an election where the majority refuses to vote? Either you poll again and again and again, or make the vote compulsory (there goes freedom), or just don't have a head of state.

But your point re: majority of the people undermines EC voting as much as it does direct elections. A state doesn't lose EC votes because people abstain, each state get's it's full quota no matter how many people stay at home.

And how does your statement not support my assertion in the second paragraph? Appealing to swing states with an uneven balance of EC votes is not diversifying, it's focusing their efforts (as demonstrated in the video). Candidates wouldn't waste time on safe seats typically. They certainly wouldn't waste time on safe seats (or alternately seats that are locked down by the opposition) that are severely underrepresented in the EC. The college forces candidates to narrow their focus, not broaden it, in the demographic that actually counts. EC votes to be gained. Demographic and geographic broadening is accidental. If those states were all jammed together in one corner of the country and had similar demographics, would you complain that candidates were narrowing their focus, or just admit they are chasing states that will yield the greatest electoral advantage to them?

The "way it should be" in a union of states is that all men (and women) are equal, not that some states get special attention because of a flawed system set up by people who didn't trust the every day person to make the 'right' choice.

edit: rephrased a sentence for clarity.

>> ^Asmo:

I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...

Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:

You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?

And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.

Also missing were the inane "achievement unlocked!" messages.

It isn't really fair of the video to use, as what is supposedly footage more representative of the older games, an insane speed-run. Quake Done Quick isn't how anyone but obsessive compulsives played it.

So.....by this logic, gambling addiction isn't addiction. I don't buy it. In this case, to the layman, "compulsion" and "addiction" are identical.

I thought addition was characterized by unhealthy behavior (e.g., placing the object of addiction over things that should be higher priority to a rational person), not some alteration of brain chemistry.

Different situations..one thing you should know is that some commandments refer to general behavior, and some commandments refer to specific actions within that general behavior..

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^shinyblurry:
2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
As you can see she is violating scripture. Her being a preacher is in itself a violation of scripture, so it is no surprise that she twists the word of God for financial gain. This cash grab is straight from hell.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
I'm confused. Why does God need money?
@shinyblurry
I need your help


Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5:42

Matthew was a scam artist.>> ^direpickle:

>> ^shinyblurry:
2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
As you can see she is violating scripture. Her being a preacher is in itself a violation of scripture, so it is no surprise that she twists the word of God for financial gain. This cash grab is straight from hell.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
I'm confused. Why does God need money?
@shinyblurry
I need your help


Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5:42

>> ^shinyblurry:

2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
As you can see she is violating scripture. Her being a preacher is in itself a violation of scripture, so it is no surprise that she twists the word of God for financial gain. This cash grab is straight from hell.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
I'm confused. Why does God need money?
@shinyblurry
I need your help



Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:42

2 Corinthians 9:7

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

As you can see she is violating scripture. Her being a preacher is in itself a violation of scripture, so it is no surprise that she twists the word of God for financial gain. This cash grab is straight from hell.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
I'm confused. Why does God need money?
@shinyblurry
I need your help

My brother committed suicide one week and a half ago. No warning, except for a few small clues of "usual" depression. He most likely had Asperger's from everything we know. But, he never got diagnosed as he was paranoid of doctors and hadn't seen so much as a dentist in 13 years.

I've tried to commit suicide myself in the past. I failed and was diagnosed with bi-polar. My brother pulled his off without a hitch. He had no such second chance--to rise from your own ashes and learn to understand yourself, and in turn others.

I have the vision of hindsight with me now. I know just how dangerous these murky waters of the mind are. They are utterly ignorant. Unrelenting. These waves deceive your mind's eye and convey only one premonition to come. And just when you think it can't be worse reality chases you through your days and dreams like some harried demon; an elemental made of some compulsion filled fateful last night of twilight's last dance. The lighthouse throws shadows rather than light and all the ports are closed.

THAT is what it means to be lost, truly. It requires great effort to stave it off. It is very much like a pitching sea. You must treat it almost like a monster of the deep by going to your doctor and arming yourself with what you can. Drugs, meditation, life changes, and most importantly knowledge...

The Internet may be a trigger in some small amount of cases, I agree. But, it is at school before we become young adults that we need to know these things and learn where to get help. We need to know how to recognize all types in ourselves and others as it is a common place issue; meanwhile psychiatry still remains semi-taboo topic in the public domain, making it a bigger problem still. It's very hard to help someone set on suicide as they are very much like Ahab in "Moby Dick". Watch your words, but know it is never truly one needle that truly breaks the camel's back.

>> ^A10anis:

I'm not fat, i have a "higher body weight." Really? Well, there weren't too many people with higher body weights in the great depression of the 30's, or in the Warsaw ghettos, or currently in famine hit Somalia. Of course some put on weight easier, and faster, than others. But it really is very simple, fewer calories equals less weight. If, however, you are happy with your "higher body weight" then fine, but accept the consequences without blaming others for your choice.


I see what you are saying, but it's not always a choice.

A friend grew up as fat girl in public school (imagine what that would be like for a sec). She tried every diet that came along for many years with no success ( and yes, her mother put her on many diets when she was young). Eventually she was put on a certain anti-depressant--and dropped weight with no conscious diet change (yes, she ate less--because the compulsion was gone).

It's not always a choice--and of course eating healthy is always a good thing.