The Hitler argument is just a logical fallacy. It's called affirming the consequent.

This is the logic:
Hitler was atheist and was bad. Therefore atheists are bad.


This is of course entirely correct, the same goes for the argument "Hitler was a catholic, therefore Christianity/Catholism is bad" This is also a fallacy, for roughly the same reason.

HOWEVER, as I tried explaining before: The triangular unholy mess that is the three major monotheistic plagues, Christianity, Islam and Judaism and all its sub-species, are central to creating the whole mess. Infact, you could say these religions are what made the Jews a distinct "race" in the first place. The propogation of these ideas for hundreds of years is what led people to believe that Jews were somehow this hive-minded entity that could be praised or, more commonly, blamed collectively as if they were a single individual, hence the insulting referrence "The Jew" when referring to a whole group of people. You only need to look at parts of the islamic world to see how Jews are still demonized as ritualistic murderers and that they drink the blood of baptized babies (or palestinian babies, depending on which fantasy you subscribe to) and all sorts of nonsense. As I previously stated, the idea that Jews can be blamed collectively for something is absurd. But Judaism, on the other hand, is not without blame, this idea, this religion is at times just as poisonous as Islam and Christianity, and it is partly responsible for the death and suffering of thousands of people, the idea is central to establishing the idea of the "Jewish race" as a distint entity. "The Jews" are not to be blamed, even partially, for their own holocaust, but Judaism is. Some people are unable to make this distinction, and that problem frequently comes up when I try to say the same thing about Islam, whenever I critize that retarded idea, people assume I think all muslims are retards, which I , for the nth time, do not, just like "the Jews" they are not a collective mind, but individuals more or less infected by a poisonous idea.

In Australia and the UK, patients go firstly to GPs (general practitioners) for all medical enquiries that are not an emergency. From there they are given referrals to hospitals/specialists/etc., should the doctor in these local clinics not be able to prescribe the required medication.

These act as gatekeepers to the hospital system, since they are small and located in all local communities and can keep the minor cases from ever needing to take up hospital resources.

I know there are better systems out there, but this at least seems like a better way than just building another multi-million dollar facility to cover another section of the population.

I hate these shitty NBC embeds. I have never once gotten one to work. THey have some ad server or cookies are some tracking/ad crap that doesn't work because of my hosts file or lack of referrer.

>> ^dag:
^I'd love to know who owns PornSift. I bet it's a Sifter.


$ whois pornsift.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Domain Name: PORNSIFT.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.PORNSIFT.COM
Name Server: NS2.PORNSIFT.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 23-aug-2007
Creation Date: 22-aug-2007
Expiration Date: 22-aug-2008

>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:36:09 EDT <<<

Expires soon!

*rocknroll

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_growl
"Thrill growl" we need more data one that..this seems to be the first written referral to the concept.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Not that I am coming to her defense or anything but they are clearly jeering oboma in the context of her comments. Really she say obama recent made some comment...jeers and boos('He did. He did.' is what I heard)... and then they go to listen to her.
So your title is really not an accurate portrayal of the events and is very misleading.


You're welcome to your opinion, but I stand by it. I'm far from the only one who read that as what was happening.

For example, the original youtube video is titled: Hillary jeered by PA voters with her "bitter" referral. The article I got the link from was far less generous than I about it.

I think trying to insert the tag "not jeering" and accusing me of attempting to mislead people is a bit much.

I don't think those people were happy about what she was saying, and I don't think the mere mention of Obama's comments upset them to the point where they made that noise.

Even the Clinton campaign's response backs me up; they said it was some pro-Obama union workers trying to stir up trouble.

These DO NOT play for me. I'm not sure what the flash problem is, but there is some weird two level flash calls and it must use referrals.

(I use flash block, but all other embed sources are fine)

I think the new user registration should ask how you found VS. Of course, one of the options is Blue's News. LOL!

So is SiftBot the overlord that can't be killed?

You forgot about levelling and ranking (I am #7 as I type this!).

Dag: How much traffics/referrers are from Blue's News? Maybe we need a top ten referrers statistics.

In general just do them embed part, seems to work for most everything I post. It can also be that some sites .swf will not load correctly depending on you http referrer <embed ...bla blah...> </embed>

That's not bad, stayed pretty true to the original. Hell of a lot better than what Madonna did to American Pie.

That was so bad someone had to make another tribute to her over it. I was going to link it but they don't allowed referrals where I tried, so play it from the menu here if you care, American Pie Eulogy.

but upon further inspection it seems more like a whitewash when examining the history of the story. (read below) Sometimes it's the things not mentioned when someone is giving an explanation.

http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

In August 2003, the Park Service approved a creationist text, Grand Canyon: A Different View, for sale in park bookstores and museums. The book by Tom Vail claims that the Grand Canyon is really only a few thousand years old, developing over a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. That same month, the Grand Canyon National Park superintendent appealed to NPS Headquarters for a “review of the book in terms of its appropriateness” for sale in a park-sponsored facility.

In repeated public statements and in response to inquiries from members of Congress, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna stated that NPS would conduct a high-level policy review. He distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In late February 2004, Mr. Barna crafted a letter which was sent to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all.

In fact, the promised review never occurred. According to responses PEER obtained from NPS under the Freedom of Information Act, NPS deliberately avoided conducting the review in order to let the controversy die down. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon Association ordered hundreds more copies of the book and offered it for a time for sale on the internet site as “natural history” (it is now the sole offering in a heretofore nonexistent category labeled “inspirational”).

During this same period, a review by Park Service geologists not only found the book wildly inaccurate but that its sale violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs. On January 25, 2004 David Shaver, the Chief of the Park Service’s Geologic Resources Division sent a memo (enclosed) to NPS Headquarters calling for removal of the book, concluding --
“Our review of …NPS policies and Grand Canyon: A Different View, lead us to conclude that this book: does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; does not further the mission of the National Park Service…and finally, that this book should not have been approved for sale in NPS affiliated book sales.”

At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as “no comment” and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters.

________________________

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred.
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_foia_response.pdf

See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation
http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder6.html

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=428

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/publiclands/faith-based/index.php

HEY DAG, this is the thread you may be remembering where "currency" started:
http://www.videosift.com/talk/user-referral-link-trackback-sift-evangelism

As for rewarding referrals, how about the referrer gets a star point after the referee becomes a starred member? That should limit abuse.

fed, I had a few sift talks detailing these same observations. One thing I think is occurring is that watching a video from an embed only increments the "views". I believe the top 5 sites are actual HTTP referrer traffic from people clicking on the YT video and going to the YT site.

VS has many people that do that for some reason. YOu can also google for site:youtube.com and some other google magic to see how many videos have videosift.com in the Top 5. It's fun.

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

Well, here's the top 10 for today so far:

1. google [organic]
2. [Direct]
3. brainblog.to (NSFW)
4. bluesnews.com[referral]
5. stumbleupon.com[referral]
6. digg.com[referral]
7. fark.com[referral]
8. 9.yahoo.com[referral]
9. gorillamask.net[referral]
10. meneame.net[referral]