>> ^kronosposeidon:

I was taught the same thing about prepositions. We were also taught to never split an infinitive, like I just did. But it's okay, actually. You can also start sentences with conjunctions sometimes, which is good news for me. Because I do it all the time.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> blankfist said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/b/blankfist-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> I hate it when the grammar gods change the rules willy fucking nilly. I remember reading somewhere they changed the rule for possessives on words ending in s. So, Tobias' is now supposed to be written Tobias's.
Who are these grammarian busybodies that appointed themselves with the power to rewrite English language rules? And why? Is there still a need to hone the English language after all these years? Is Great Fucking Expectations a goddamn work-in-progress? Does that mean I should've passed my 11th grade English exams just by shitting in a bag of Doritos because how dare the teacher tell me what is and what is not correct English? Shit, with this kind of loose adherence to language I imagine cave paintings could be considered proper fucking diction. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...

By the way, quality idea about the NSFW tab.
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> kronosposeidon said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/k/kronosposeidon-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Maybe that's a bad thing if you're a 19th century grammarian. I live in the modern era.
</div></div></div>

And can we fix this goddamn fucking quote system? I mean, what the fucking fucking fuck? My eyes just vomited blood from looking at this jumble of nonsense. But seriously, believe in Jesus.

I was taught the same thing about prepositions. We were also taught to never split an infinitive, like I just did. But it's okay, actually. You can also start sentences with conjunctions sometimes, which is good news for me. Because I do it all the time. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Maybe that's a bad thing if you're a 19th century grammarian. I live in the modern era.

I hate it when the grammar gods change the rules willy fucking nilly. I remember reading somewhere they changed the rule for possessives on words ending in s. So, Tobias' is now supposed to be written Tobias's.
Who are these grammarian busybodies that appointed themselves with the power to rewrite English language rules? And why? Is there still a need to hone the English language after all these years? Is Great Fucking Expectations a goddamn work-in-progress? Does that mean I should've passed my 11th grade English exams just by shitting in a bag of Doritos because how dare the teacher tell me what is and what is not correct English? Shit, with this kind of loose adherence to language I imagine cave paintings could be considered proper fucking diction. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...

By the way, quality idea about the NSFW tab.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Maybe that's a bad thing if you're a 19th century grammarian. I live in the modern era.


I hate it when the grammar gods change the rules willy fucking nilly. I remember reading somewhere they changed the rule for possessives on words ending in s. So, Tobias' is now supposed to be written Tobias's.

Who are these grammarian busybodies that appointed themselves with the power to rewrite English language rules? And why? Is there still a need to hone the English language after all these years? Is Great Fucking Expectations a goddamn work-in-progress? Does that mean I should've passed my 11th grade English exams just by shitting in a bag of Doritos because how dare the teacher tell me what is and what is not correct English? Shit, with this kind of loose adherence to language I imagine cave paintings could be considered proper fucking diction. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...



By the way, quality idea about the NSFW tab.

I just made a site called Tinkerbilly for people to discover and share amateur music videos. It's a work in progress, so please let me know if you have any tips on how to make it better. Here is the link if you're interested: http://tinkerbilly.com

The detection programming is iffy at best. Apparently if the answer is supposed to be 7, a single pixel will work, unless the answer is supposed to be 6, in which case... a single pixel also works. There was a work in progress video of this same game by the same author that showed a lot more geometric patterns, and one answer he used was to fill the answer board entirely in black. Not a hacked ROM, just awkward programming.

First of all, by creating this video you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing Christians of. Second, everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian. The bible is clear in many places that there are a lot of people who will claim to be Christian who really aren't ( Matthew 7). Third,do you hold yourself to the same standards you are holding Christians? Christians are people just like anyone else. We are imperfect we make mistakes and anyone who claims to be perfect isn't a Christian at all according to 1 John. But if you can't live up to the standards you set for other you are nothing more than a hypocrite yourself. Fourth, the characteristics of the people you are describing do not fit what the bible says a Christian is in the first place. That is society's stereotypical view of what a Christian is and Satan has done well at getting people to believe that lie. The people you are describing are self-righteous "religious" people, not Christians. Can Christians tend to be that way at times? Yes! But again we are imperfect. We are all a work in progress that will not be completed until we get to heaven. Are we any better NO. If there is any difference in any Christian that ever was or will be, God made the difference, not the man. You see a person who understands that they have nothing good in and of themselves and their only hope is what Christ has done for them can't boast about themselves. All they can boast about is how wonderful Christ is in spite of how awful they are. I didn't contribute anything to my salvation, God did it all. How can I not show the same unconditional love He has shown me to others. The bible says anyone who doesn't love isn't of God. So there, if the people who call themselves Christians aren't loving, no matter what they say, the bible says they are not truly Christian in the first place.
Lastly, remember Jesus Christ was perfect He never did anything wrong to anyone. He was the most loving person to ever walk the face of the earth. The bible says God is love. And yet they hated Him. They nailed Him to a cross to die.That shows that even if Christians were perfect and perfectly loving in everything they said or did people would still hate them. The bible says Satan is the accuser of the brethren.

Jesus said,

John 15:18-21
18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’b If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.

Watch This Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23LaK99PEko

yer right man, yer never wrong-lifes' a hard lesson to learn, most folks don't survive their own bullshit....me included-I am only suffering myself and others because I love them-you'll make it
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Say it to him. He started the shit storm, I escalated it. I tried to end it, he prodded again. He is the one that is outrageously in the wrong here, not I.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
and the douchebag rears it's ugly head.Try putting a lid onnit, man-yer batting a thousand as it is-Just a friendly suggestion...Qualm and I have a few bumps and curves here, he's a decent cat....so are you when you aren't brown-nosing or showing your ass-work on yer people skills maybe??.. I did, and like most of life, it's a work in progress.
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Go rape your step-dad and repay the favor of taking your virginity at age 6. And the run along.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
So you give up then. OK. Run along...

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Whatever.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
Well, I'm sort of enjoying your grudge, so... can you keep hating me please, and just refrain from posting your violent rape fantasies and bizarre jibberish onto my profile page from now on?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Oh whatever, you self-righteous, hypersensitive dingbat. I suggest that you don't bring anything up about me on this site again then, then I'll lay my grudge to rest.

You brought up a topic that I really don't like, completely unrelated to anything, which is why I got pissed at you and I still am, but if you just keep your damn nose to yourself, I see no reason why I can't just ignore you and live happily ever after.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
They were not simply "immature comments" that you left on my profile page, gwizz. They were bizarre, violent and of a sexual nature. I just glanced at them, but I saw the word "rape". There is nothing funny about rape, gwizz. Nothing whatsoever. I know that your very special Blankfist used to often casually joke about raping children here on Videosift - he finds that evil topic amusing, apparently - and it's starting to become obvious here that you sort of emulate him. Perhaps that is why you had such a strange outburst.

I see you'd like to just drop the whole matter. In that case I suggest that you stop writing on my profile page, and then my "differing opinions" will just disappear -- once you've deleted them, I mean.

Best of luck to you.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I left two immature comments in response to you bringing up that whole thing. I remember them well and they were quite considered. You took a shit on an exposed nerve, so I reacted. It wasn't particularly grown up, but there we go.

I've never posted stuff like that to her - my innuendo is rarely angry - and the stuff I did post to her were quite reciprocated. Hell, in the beginning she was as bad as I. I doubt you know that if you only heard the other side of the story. I liked AC, I really did, but she changed, and that's what drove her away. I want the old AC back, the cool one, not the one that rage-quit. But we can't all have what we want.

I deleted your comments, because I'd rather just move on. I think you acted bad and I responded with more bad actions, so I'm putting a stop to it from my end.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
Hey, you deleted my differing opinions!

No, you drove Alien Concept away. She was awesome, btw. Probably you posted comments to her profile page similar to the twisted stuff you recently posted to mine. Is this what you do when you don't agree with people? Do you even remember the atrocious comments regarding sexual violence you left on my page? Or were you blind drunk when you wrote them?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You started this attack, I only followed through. Bah, it's a waste of my time and energy to put any more effort into this.

I may have grown up, but you still have some to do since you only have name-calling left in you. I've not driven people away from this site, she drove herself away. If she must pin it on me, then bah.

If I had the ability to actually drive people away, there are a choice few who would be long, long gone.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
If leaving behind on my profile page a foul string of violent, threatening and insane sexual commentary, as you did, is what you call "differing opinions," then I can see why you worship that fool Blankfist. He used to do that too, when he'd get mad at me for disagreeing with him. Obviously I got under your skin, and that wasn't my intention. I was being quite sincere when I made note of the fact that you've seemed a little more mature lately, from the time, not too long ago, when one could rely on you, with 100% certainty, to post a dozen or more totally inane and puerile sexist comments per day.

As for my leaving, everybody knows you have a habit of driving people away from this site, creepy stalker guy: http://history.videosift.com/talk/This-Place-Has-Been-Amazing-But-It-s-Time-To-Leave?loadcomm=1

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
That is the same sound I make when the limited format of text fails to fully convey the ideas in my head! Like when 2 missiles pass each other in flight hehehe (they don't call them missiles for nothing I guess!)

Anyway, I didn't mean to exasperate you. This was not my intent. You are always a very insightful and humble person here on the sift, and for that you have my greatest respect. Here's to the next delightful convo!

i find you an interesting person also.
and one i feel i can discuss things with that others may either take offense or become indignant.
thats why i wrote you.not to be inflammatory but to suggest your over-simplification of buddhism/christianity may not be close to a reality but rather closer to the western worlds abridged and condensed version.
western philosophy/theosophy could not exist without eastern philosophy/theosophy, not the other way around.

i pointed out that many in the western world take a myopic stance,not intentionally i would presume but rather one set by culture.i was not implying that you are myopic but that you were espousing certain well-grooved tracks used by many concerning buddhism.soundbytes usually perpetrated by the church itself and then parroted.

it is interesting to note that even teillhard de chardin remarked on the similarities of christs teachings and buddha.this was rejected by the church but i tend to agree with chardin.

while i agree that text is not a suitable and contextual medium to express such dynamic concepts and philosophies let me make a few observations and you tell me what you think.
1.you stated that buddhism does not recognize the "changing soul".this is an incorrect statement due to the fact that just about every precept of buddhism stems from ones journey and the self realization that one must change,grow to move on to a greater consciousness.
the primary vehicle for this is forgiveness,but while in buddhism this is a starting point and eventually should lead to an awareness where forgiveness is moot due to the fact that your choices will no longer need to be forgiven,christianity tends to view forgiveness in the latter stages of awareness.
which one is correct?that is for you to decide.
2.you stated that KARMA is not a vehicle of divine salvation,but that is a misnomer,it is very much a vehicle of divine salvation due to the fact that buddhist view all life as divine.while christianity views humans as dirt,sinful and unclean and the only path to salvation is through jesus christ.this is a very complex paradigm and i do not do this subject justice but that can wait for another conversation.while the concept in itself is simple,to express it in all its simplicity takes volumes.(just look at all the writings on this subject,many many perspectives).

these are only a few points.points i make to show that coming from a christian perspective may color the beauty and depth of buddhism.i do not feel you are a fundamentalist and that is a good thing because the teachings of jesus are beautiful as they are succinct but if viewed only from the eyes of the church i have always felt the meat of jeus christ's teachings have gone either misinterpreted or outright twisted.then again,i view religion with a suspicious eye and read the teachings from a different vantage point.
does this mean i am right and my views infallible?
no..that would arrogant.
but it does mean i have the ability to glean understanding that is not tainted by the church because i view the teachings from a different angle.
studying cultural religious history has given me context to better understand those teachings.
that has been a work in progress for 25 years and im still going,still learning and still fascinated by it all.
as always my friend..a pleasure discussing my favorite subject with you.
till our next conversation.
namaste.

I say stick the public option back in and see if they can set a new record for longest filibuster.

I'm hesitant to give an opinion on a work-in-progress. I don't want them to pass something worthless just to pass it. If people want to block a non-crippled bill then at least make them go through with it.

It's a work in progress.

Great post. Young has been a maverick from the way back. Don't think you'd be able to sit through a full performance though.
("The Well-Tuned Piano (1964-73-81-present). Each realization is a separately titled and independent composition. Over 60 realizations to date. World premiere: Rome 1974. American Premiere: New York 1975 "Performances have exceeded six hours in length"-WIKI)

We are all, works in progress.

i hope the reaction was not a visceral one.for that was not my intention.i just felt it proper to give an insight where my views may lie.it was a generalization of where i am coming from.nothing more.nothing less.
and i certainly would not presume to impose my views upon you my friend.i just felt it would give a modicum of context to where i was coming from.
that video does not encapsulate my views,just gives context.

as for MDMA.i traveled with the raves for years,my ex roomie was a basement chemist and made it,that and many other compounds.liquid xanax for one (which was his downfall btw.R.I.P teddy) so i am quite familiar with its effects.my faith has a shamanistic quality to it so i do not rebuke mind-altering drugs to perceive the universe through different eyes,in fact i welcome it.

in regards to your letter.
having put things in such a manner i would tend to agree with you.faith and belief should be discussed,but since many see debate as am antagonistic polemic,i tend to avoid such words.to me debate is about sharing views and information,not a winner take-all paradigm.so in respects to how you expressed your views on that,i agree wholeheartedly.debate is a win-win in my book.
if i am carrying around disinformation and do not realize it,i have no problem with changing my thoughts when faced with better and more conclusive evidence.it is the ignorant who refuse to let go of long held ideas that no longer serve any purpose but to continue their own delusion.
a better analogy would be:if my fly was open i would hope somebody would point that out and not let me walk around with my wanker hanging in the wind.

which i believe is what you will attempt to do.your participation so far has been enjoyable,and done with great respect,so i have no problem with engaging with you.
the sharing of ideas is one of our greatest strengths dont you think?it is because of this wonderful conversation that i have revealed a part of how i see things.not to convince you,but to give you a better context.my philosophy has been a 30 year work in progress.i usually do not reveal anything due to peoples childish ability to jump in and assume...well..everything.so i find it prudent to not say anything,just that i am a man of faith.for if and when i DO reveal my views,i get hammered from not only atheists but religious folk as well.i am well equipped to deal with both,and my occupation gives me ample weaponry to deal with fundamentalists decisively.i actually prefer to discuss with atheists,because at least they are curious and there can be a discussion.except for militant atheists,they can be just as rigid as the fundamentalist,and the discussion garners little but dust.

i would hear your reaction to the video.i do hope i can clarify some aspects for you.remember,it was just a generalization.nothing more.
i look forward to your response.
till next time..namaste.

I'm assuming then you want to see an economic model in place that currently only exists in textbooks. The problem is that there is no such thing as a perfect free market economy, not as long as you have humans involved.

"Collusion between private companies and government?" Come on. Government and business is in bed with each other and always has been. And it gets worse as the private sector takes over more and more public sector business and actually manages to do an appalling job. The examples I could give here are numerous.

The bank bailouts don't support free market principles but they were quite happy to take the money. The problem is the banking system didn't work in the first place. These were the capitalists who claimed they offered a stable and efficient financial market. But all they did was to conjure up increasingly complicated financial products, aka scams, in the name of profit and we saw precisely what happened.

I think it's pie in the sky to suggest that unfettered free market economics will solve even a small amount of our problems. In trying to impose that theory there would be a devil of a mess in trying to compensate for the differences in all pre-existing markets not to mention the fallout from removing all kinds of government regulations.

On the other hand I am *not* a fan of governmental waster and incompetence and I have seen these forces in action. I have to wonder if the UK government are actually capable of fighting a war. And the glib response to the equally facile U.S criticisms of the NHS avoid the many problems the service has. The question is how do you get better government and better politicians to provide services that need to be provided by the state? It's going to be a long work in progress.

what you first all fail to understand... is that the proposed process of evolution involves gradual changes over many generations. We can agree to that correct?

So none of the so called 'Transitional Fossils' are remotely transitional.

A transitional form would be one going through the process of developing an arm / leg etc. These fossils should be plentiful considering it would take a sheerly ridiculous number of steps before the animals new form was fully developed... In otherwords.. how many generations and how many forms would it take for a arm to form in an animal which has no arms. How many millions of tries would be necessary by random mutation before it was successful.

I'm sure you can imagine the process.. considering the animal has no idea what it is trying for - the first form of an arm would be, I suppose a stump of some type... now considering this stump would serve it no actual purpose (and in the case of fish we have the peculiar situation where it randomly would need to form 4 of these in symetrical spots... all at once? or one at a time?) This stump would be a detriment.. not an improvement - and so would the tremendous number of other steps involved until this form was complete.

The key here being that every aspect of every animal and plant would need to go through this process.. and the vast majority of these changes could not occur in a beneficial manner - natural selection supposedly works because this change is an improvement.

We have no fossils which represent these transitions.. nothing that isn't fully functional. The ground should be littered with millions of these tiny changes.. in the development of eyes / limbs / and every other form. Instead we find animals which are finished products - just like IDA - well designed for their given purpose.. no works in progress.. no half-formed wings. Were these to even be demonstrated the question would still remain... if every species went through these changes for every single aspect of their development.. any fossil bed should be full of intermediates. By intermediates I mean something which is in the process of developing something.. not finished. IDA uses a thumb which we do not have to climb trees.. it is formed and completed.

One other thing to consider is that evolution's proposed mechanism is random mutation combined with natural selection.. it randomly makes changes.. the failures die out. At the heart of it the mechanism is simply random mutation. - so how many tries does a creature have to make before it randomly stumbles upon something which works? I would wager a vast number..

Thus the fossil record has a compound problem.. not only should it show transitional fossils that are in the lineage of the current form.. it should also show the millions and millions of failed attempts.. the millions of random tries toward a new limb of some kind that were rejected by natural selection.

Not only that - but the world around us should show living examples of these failed species.. because natural selection works on the flawed assumption that if something decides to start working on a new limb.. that since the new limb is a decidedly bad evolutionary change, that creature would die out. Not the case... every animal wants to survive.. and just because it has an inferior design in no way suggests they wouldn't still be around.

IDA is a lemur... a very old variety of lemur. - and no, you don't have a thumb on your foot.

>> ^braindonut:
^ But I don't know that it makes sense to single out humanity, when considering the massive nature of such a system one would be talking about.


The reason why it makes sense to single out humanity, as Chardin focuses on in his book The Phenomenon of Man, is because humanity is the point where evolution becomes self-aware, where evolution extends beyond biology and into thought or consciousness, as evidenced by the accelerating cultural and technological developments in culture and civilization. Humanity is a critical stage of evolution that signifies the transition from a genetic-based system to a consciousness-based system: the posthuman.

Also, the reason I used the word redeem was to sort of tie some Christian verbiage into the explanation. Transhumanism recognizes that the human being is an evolutionary work-in-progress, that many of its shortcomings -- both physical and moral -- are due to outdated biological forms that dictate our behavior and our mortality. Perhaps a more precise word would be "rescue" or "save".