I did not know that!
I'll have to go looking for it. Thanks a bunch!

In reply to this comment by Grimm:
When they rereleased Dune on DVD a few years ago they included both the theatrical release and the re-cut longer TV version.
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:

I've seen both. I have the original VideoTape movie version (It even came with a Dune dictionary so you could follow along with the lingo), but I have never managed to tape the TV edit version to my VCR. (it hasn't been released in any other format - That I've ever seen.)

Fight Club's antics are at it again!

Also, *grammar in the description: "Whose"

edit -
>> ^lucky760:
Love the perfectly timed "Aww, man."


I'm pretty sure that was the guy videotaping it.

Edit 2 - And I don't like the new VideoSift features. PUT MY TEXT WHERE I TELL YOU TO PUT IT! DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY PUT THE QUOTE BENEATH IT. And WHY THE HELL DO I HAVE TO CLICK TO SEE ALL COMMENTS NOW?! Christ. Whose bad choices were these?

Dune was an amazing book. Like LOTR, the story is huge. Lynch got so caught up in the movie, his version ended up something like 4.5 hours. Something that couldn't be marketed. Most of it ended up on the cutting room floor as they hacked it apart to bring it down to a regular movie sized chunk. The result was that anyone who haddn't read the book, had problems following it.

They tried for years to get TV networks to run it but no network would consider it. Finely it was agreed that someone would go back and re-edit a new version of the film for TV. That's the only way they managed to get it on the networks.

Most people don't realize that there are two versions to this film. Both very different from each other. As it ended up, there was enough unused film footage to create a whole different version of the film. Alot of the scenes are the same, but shot from different camera angles.

I've seen both. I have the original VideoTape movie version (It even came with a Dune dictionary so you could follow along with the lingo), but I have never managed to tape the TV edit version to my VCR. (it hasn't been released in any other format - That I've ever seen.)

On that note, years after that. There was a 6-hour mini-series remake of Dune staring William Hurt - I have that on DVD also.

"Lies, Penis, Icepick" > "Sex, Lies, Videotape"

Funny, the last time I saw this happen in America, the megaphone user was violently arrested, as well as half a dozen people who were videotaping it.

>> ^Payback:
The Grinder- Being killed in less than a second is fairly humane. I hope to go that quickly.
The Cracks- The chicks falling off the equipment are not systemic cruelty but poor handling. It could even be argued that Vegan Camera Person is being more cruel by just videotaping its suffering rather than killing it. I wonder if they turned off the camera and walked away, tutt-tutting while it writhed on the floor.


You nailed exactly what I was thinking. The chicks being dropped in the grinder are getting a quick and humane death, which is the best that can be done for anything you kill for food. If you want to see something inhumane try raising a more than a dozen chickens in even a partially enclosed space. Inevitably one of the chickens will be weaker than the others, and will be gradually pecked to death by all the others. That's the reason for 'cruel' de-beaking of the chicks as they are moved on. All in all animal's raised for food usually die in a more humane fashion than their wild and free counterparts which is should count for a lot.

The Cracks- The chicks falling off the equipment are not systemic cruelty but poor handling. It could even be argued that Vegan Camera Person is being more cruel by just videotaping its suffering rather than killing it. I wonder if they turned off the camera and walked away, tutt-tutting while it writhed on the floor.



ABSOLUTE lovely comment. in fact thats exactly what the camera man did, because vegans are fucking pussy's I can say that because I was one as I explained in the thread. that fucking wiener took the camera seen the scalded chick, said OH MUH GAWD, did a little tear then went on to look for other photogenic situations. A civil human would of smashed its head, would of thwacked it against the metal conveyor belt, whatever. the thing was just alive and suffering and any normally operating and thinking human would of done the humane thing. call me a hypocrite but vegans with there pointless save the world everything has feelings shit just isnt right. maby in 500 years. thats if humans last that long.

well, good talkin to myself. i'll have a drink for ya.

The Grinder- Being killed in less than a second is fairly humane. I hope to go that quickly.

The Cracks- The chicks falling off the equipment are not systemic cruelty but poor handling. It could even be argued that Vegan Camera Person is being more cruel by just videotaping its suffering rather than killing it. I wonder if they turned off the camera and walked away, tutt-tutting while it writhed on the floor.

My theory: Pranker asked friend A to help him film this prank. Friend A tells Friend B about this devious plot because Friend B and Friend A are both way the fuck cooler than the Pranker, bro-fives, etc. A and B come up with plan to turn prank around and videotape it. Pranker gets fucking egg-pwned and the internets thanks them forever.

Be very skeptical of anything that comes from Break. Users are paid $400 if their video makes it to the front page. Of course this is a plausible event - teachers have been known to throw shit, that's what makes it believable.

Disregarding the terrible "teehee" acting and eraser controversy, to me the obvious question is, why would anyone videotape a friend in class flipping the hair of some girl? This is obviously set up.

Why would you videotape your dad taking a shit?

People just get pissed when they can't break the fucking law as easily as they feel they should be able to.

There is no statute that says "yeah, someone taking a photo of you breaking the law is, in fact, breaking the law." Come on. Seriously? Quit crying. Those cameras are probably saving lives. The same laws that allow you to videotape an event, such as this, or what have you, allow that company to photograph speeders. What if you were to catch a crime happening while videotaping an event? You should be fined or go to jail for it, right?

It's little douchebag weasels and fucking bullshit like this that stifle justice and keep common sense from prevailing.

if nobody is being harmed then its a GO in my book.

And that is EXACTLY the point. You, somehow, don't see any harm being caused by this guy.

Yet anybody trying to do business there on that day was delayed considerably by him, costing them the loss of their time. That is harm, by forcing that inconvenience on people unlucky enough to do business on this guys chosen protest day.

His buddy was videotaping people in a county office, presumably people paying things like traffic tickets and other business they may not want public(now they are on youtube). It should be their right to request they NOT be filmed while doing business there. That right was violated by this guy, again causing harm.

The county office then had to call the police when the guy refused to respect everyone's wishes to not be filmed. This cost everybody money and put people at risk by tying up a police officer for no good reason. Again, causing harm.


(T)hats the only beef i really see in your argument. That this man was interrupting "business".

And that isn't harm, why?


mike judge is a fucking prophet.

Seems to me you made him your prophet BEFORE you saw any signs. You might want to consider the possibility your letting personal opinion taint what you see, just a touch.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. The ends justify the means. Like a Medusa, this philosophy shows itself a thousand different ways; whether its burning witches at the stake, trespassing to videotape others having sex, or making STD testing mandatory for prostitutes - at its core, is the same monster: the ends justify the means. You cannot support one without supporting them all for despite their varied appearances, they are all one and the same.
2. Irrational Fear. Your argument is framed in fear, a tiger in a bushes or a Cheney in the desert. The results of policy driven by scaremongering and policy driven by reason and intellect have, historically, been more than lopsided. We are not a Fox News audience, so why would you try to provoke us as such?
3. Slippery slope principle/Snowball Effect. I do not think you pay enough respect to this principle. You seem content that humans do not carry simple principles to their furthest reaches, turning a tiny snowball into a 300 ft disaster as it reaches the bottom of the hill.

*sigh* Why do we need to go over this same ground all the time?

#1 conflates the prostitution equivalent of traffic laws with communists calling for a worker's revolution. You've admitted you'd like a violent revolution against people like me. You're a hypocrite, and a fearmonger.

#2 is pure projection. Irrational fear is thinking that the government requiring businessmen to care about their customers is more worrisome than letting businessmen be free to do whatever they can get away with behind a customer's back.

#3 is an example of your own irrational fear. There's a big difference between regulation requiring regular testing for STD's, and requiring testing for everyone. It's like the difference between saying "Football players should wear protective gear to play" and "everyone watching the game must wear the same protective gear". I can probably get the congress to implement the former rule, I'd certainly get laughed at for the latter. These same forces you think rule the private market are certainly at work in democratic politics.

4. Lesser of two evils. You seem distrusting of humans enough to force them into testing, and monitoring their behavior; but trusting enough of humans not to persecute others or abuse their power; yet the entire weight of history and psychology is against this notion. There has been far more suffering at the hands of human persecution than there ever has been at the hands of herpes, HIV, or chlamydia.

This is where you completely lose me. I'm distrustful of all humans. I'm trustful that politicians will obey elections, that our elections aren't being rigged, and that if they were, they couldn't keep it secret, and we'd have a revolution to put those things back in order. Keeping bad politicians out and good ones in is our responsibility. If you have an idea of how to make that effort easier, I'm all ears.

I'm generally trustful that most businesses are just out to make a buck, and have no inherent desire to be evil. I just think that they have a tendency to be amoral in their quest for profit, and often being evil is more cost-effective than being good.

When you're a public figure, you have to either a) sell evil as good, or b) do good. Everyone's capitalistic self interest is in trying to catch them doing evil, and out them for it. So much so, people in many different political sewing circles will make things up, and try to "out" politicians for things they didn't do (like, say, forge a fake birth certificate).

If you're a company with a product, you just don't tell people about the evil, and spend billions on marketing the positives of the product. If someone happens to catch them doing something evil, and tells the world about it, they get a vehement denial, and a disinformation campaign, maybe even a lawsuit (though they seem to do that less these days).

The market libertarians imagine is a figment of mathematical fancy -- out here in the real world, there isn't perfect information, there isn't perfect competition, and there are very few truly rational economic actors. Even if there were, what you would need to enforce a libertarian free market would be a government with perfect information, perfect enforcement, perfect impartiality, clear consensus on how to apply the law, and all the power it needs to enforce it.

Out here in the real world, we trust no one, least of all people who have a profit incentive for being indifferent to the harm they cause people.

1. The ends justify the means. Like a Medusa, this philosophy shows itself a thousand different ways; whether its burning witches at the stake, trespassing to videotape others having sex, or making STD testing mandatory for prostitutes - at its core, is the same monster: the ends justify the means. You cannot support one without supporting them all for despite their varied appearances, they are all one and the same.

2. Irrational Fear. Your argument is framed in fear, a tiger in a bushes or a Cheney in the desert. The results of policy driven by scaremongering and policy driven by reason and intellect have, historically, been more than lopsided. We are not a Fox News audience, so why would you try to provoke us as such?

3. Slippery slope principle/Snowball Effect. I do not think you pay enough respect to this principle. You seem content that humans do not carry simple principles to their furthest reaches, turning a tiny snowball into a 300 ft disaster as it reaches the bottom of the hill. How far would we have to travel from this "good intentioned" policy before someone asked the following "good intentioned" questions:

"which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice sex without regular testing for disease"
"which of you would join me in requiring annual testing of all persons for disease"
"which of you would join me in requiring armbands be worn which visually display the results of all disease tests"
"which of you would join me in prohibiting those with diseases from having sex"
"which of you would join me in making it illegal to leave your house without regular testing for disease"
and so on...

We can't frame a reasonable argument against any of these ideas if we accept your premise, because they are all based on the same idea of "the common good" being more important than individual misery. Certainly, each would provide more and more "common good" at the expense of more and more individual misery. If "common good" is your only goal, there is no conceivable limit to the policies you could create.

4. Lesser of two evils. You seem distrusting of humans enough to force them into testing, and monitoring their behavior; but trusting enough of humans not to persecute others or abuse their power; yet the entire weight of history and psychology is against this notion. There has been far more suffering at the hands of human persecution than there ever has been at the hands of herpes, HIV, or chlamydia.

>> ^NetRunner:
Now, which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice prostitution without regular testing for disease? Neither of you?
Well then, I hope you all catch porcine chlamydia from your legal hookers.