>> ^NetRunner:
I look forward to seeing what kind of advertisers we attract with this.


Same here. I'm actually wondering if we'll (and hoping to) see if any actual Sifters would pay to self-link for a day.

@Stingray: As we mention on the submission page, all submissions are subject to review, and anything that is objectionable will not be approved.

Vag i am capable of rational thought even when i am upset by something. Everything i said is and was rational and as balanced as i can ever hope to be as a human being with a human brain.

You came to chastise me for getting involved in something which i was INVITED to be a part of (by dint of it being public), and of all the people who DID accept the invite, you chastise me for appealing to reason. I just don't get it. And i do call that ignorant. What word would you prefer? Perhaps "misguided?" I will allow that change, because i feel that this conversation is indeed that - misguided. I know you're a better person than this, but consider what you've said to me:

Libel isn't libel if you make assurances that it's true?
I shouldn't get involved in a public discussion? It wasn't me who wanted it public.
Be finished and stop talking when i reply to your conversation?

I hope we can finish this calmly and as friends. My point is this:

It may or may not be true. If it is, then i'm sorry you guys had to go through it. But it's not for us to know, it's nothing to do with us. That's all i've ever said.

I never tried to offend or make enemies, and that's why i remained 100% neutral, please try to see that. I never sided. The worst thing i ever said was that it was horrible to go public, and i'm sure we can all agree on that? That it should have been dealt with in a better way? Surely in retrospect that's obvious?

What a needless mess, and it turns two people like you and i into combatants in conversation over a simple misunderstanding of intentions.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny.. calm down. Have your opinions. I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to them. I do think that calling someone you know nothing about "ignorant" is a little ridiculous, but that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

I was offended by what you said and felt I needed to defend myself. End of story. We should be able to talk about this calmly.



In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.

1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.

3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.

I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.

The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.

I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.

Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Danny.. calm down. Have your opinions. I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to them. I do think that calling someone you know nothing about "ignorant" is a little ridiculous, but that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

I was offended by what you said and felt I needed to defend myself. End of story. We should be able to talk about this calmly.



In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.

1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.

3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.

I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.

The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.

I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.

Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.

1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.

3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.

I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.

The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.

I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.

Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

The speech was in October of 1991. The Presidential election was the next year.

So? A year is a long time in politics. The Presidential election campagin season doesn't even start until after the primaries, which didn't start until mid 1992. The speech wasn't anywhere/anywhen near a campaign thing. Anyone with an ounce of sense knew it was void of actual offense. And yet people who were of a different political persuasion felt perfectly justified in ridiculously dragging the matter through the entire process of a full-on congressional investigation. Why? Well - like many politically motivated attacks - it was all done 'for the children!' (scream it like Helen Lovejoy)

That brings us to Obama. I don't think he abused his office, but there were a lot of thins in his speech drafts that legitimately were concerning. The bit where he has kids writing letters about "How can I help my President?" more than smack of political catechization. There was plenty for protesters to hang their hat on.

But once the protests hit, the objectionable stuff was hastily sanitized from his talk. I'd say the protests did some good in that regard. Regardless, there was more than enough reason for "seperation of school & state" parents to be getting their trews in a wad. There was at least as much to be concerned about with Obama's little speech as there was from Bush's or Reagan's.

So - howcome we're supposed to think all the objections to Obama's school speech are 'too much' and 'out of control' but that the same whack-a-doodle craziness is perfectly OK when applied to Bush1? The only possible explanation is naked, unvarnished, hypocritical political bias.

>> ^poolcleaner:
After reading the comments, I wish I hadn't upvoted. I mean, I wouldn't downvote, but wth -- LIES?


Not necessarily lies, as most people (including Thai natives) do find the Durian's smell quite objectionable, although probably not nearly as much as in the video. I've once heard it be described as "Tastes like heaven, smells like hell", which is probably an accurate quote. I myself actually love both the taste and smell of Durian, although I can't imagine a Durian smoothie - we don't even really drink that here.

I moved to Thailand to teach English about 2.5 years ago. Here, Durian is the "king of fruit" (Mangosteens are the "queen"). Durian is quite popular with most Thais, but some say they don't like the smell and/or taste.

Durian is sold at many markets and local shops where I live (Uttaradit province for anyone familiar with Thailand). If there is a large amount of them, particularly if any have been cut open, I can smell them from fairly far away; say 4 meters or 12 feet or so. I had heard about them before I came here, and had expectations of them having an indescribably horrendous smell, but even when I first encountered them I didn't think that the smell was very bad.

At first, I thought it was mildly objectionable, but less so than any of the smells commonly used to describe it (rotten meat, etc.). I don't really agree with any of the things I've heard the smell compared to. I've never heard anyone compare it to vomit before, I definitely don't agree with that one. Smelling vomit almost instantly makes me want to vomit also, I have to plug my nose quickly to avoid that reaction.

I tried eating durian after I had been here about 6 months or so. In that first tasting, I thought that the taste was notably different than the smell. It has a very strange consistency for a fruit; it is soft and creamy, and can get to be almost pudding-like as it ripens. It has lightly fibrous strings in it, sort of like the stringy bits inside a banana peel -- not at all strong. I don't know how to describe the taste other than to say it reminds me of cream liquors, minus the alcohol of course. In my first tasting I thought that it was good, but nothing too special -- particularly when compared to all the other fantastic fresh fruits here (mangosteens are a personal favorite, along with mango, papaya, etc.)

Since then I have developed a taste for it, and eat it pretty regularly when it is in season. I enjoy the flavor a lot now, and I even have come to enjoy the smell of it. I never had a violent reaction to the smell like the test subject in this video. I am not sure if that is genetic, cultural, or if there are varieties of durian elsewhere in SE Asia that have a stronger smell. Some of the other westerners that I know here have developed a taste for it like I have, and some hate it.

Based on the number of upvotes awarded to the Jesus Karate video, I'm not sure that the community is clear on what is/isn't allowed/upvote-worthy.

People apparently think (maybe subconsciously even) that they are "spreading the word" of an injustice by upvoting a video. In that specific case, the word was already spread, and spreading, so did it need to continue here?

We're already in the murky waters of subjective valuation, and framing that with hard borders (no snuff, no porn, no advertising) almost limits the potential of a community to "move" in favor of, or against, a sift. We have an automated system for discarding things the community finds objectionable, why isn't that good enough? I would almost be in favor of a completely automated system, perhaps with more aggressive discard logic.

>> ^burdturgler:
I am actually on your side when it comes to legalizing prostitution, in fact I'm the one who brought it up in the thread .. but you have to turn it into something stupid like kids should be exposed to it.


I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks and just go right into what's important. If you go back and reread my comment, you'll see no instance where I said children "should be exposed" to prostitution. The issue is you're trying to expunge the world around you of anything you find objectionable for your kid, and that's a very popular yet dangerous attitude.

You're essentially saying you feel it's okay to police people's behavior. Think about that. Then think about same sex marriage bans and the war on drugs and any number of other violent affronts on people's personal and civil liberties throughout the course of human civilization. You are no different than those who didn't want 'colored people' going to the same schools as their pure, snow white, impressionable children.

It's a scary notion to have people like you and that cameraman feeling justified in dictating the morals we should abide by or else face violence. And all of this done for the sake of whatever fear-driven hyperbole they parade as a victim at that moment: children, family, homeland security, sanctity of marriage, etc.

Just look at the language of disdain you use when referring to prostitutes, burdy. Things like "slut" and "fat skank" are terms that show bigoted hatred, in my opinion.

What if I have religious grounds for finding apple in general to be objectionable?

Yes, Steve, slide down that slippery slope - it's fun!

"The delightfully named "Me So Holy" app was rejected by Apple on the basis that you could take a snapshot of yourself and crop it onto figures of Jesus or other religious figures, which it felt some people might find "objectionable."

The developer, Benjamin Kahle, was rather upset by the rejection and posted the following on his blog:

"Our question is, is religion really to be placed in the same category as these violent apps? Sex, urine, and defecation don't seem to be off-limits, yet a totally non-violent, religion-based app is." "

(via EscapistMagazine.com)