VoodooV

Member Profile

A little about me...
"if I could" I would like to beat up defenseless women. It's not a threat, It's just a fantasy of mine.
Member Since: April 28, 2010
Last Power Points used: July 16, 2011
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to VoodooV

15 Comments

VoodooV says...

You haven't addressed ANY of the complaints I registered. You haven't responded to the complaints about the racist videos, you haven't responded to the abuse of the ignore system for newtboy, and you seem intent on framing this as some sort of personal vendetta.

I also find it interesting that twice now when I've asked you to ban someone for racist behavior, the first words out of your mouth are you getting defensive that you don't share their views. I didn't ask you about *your* views. You doth protest too much, sir.

Perception is reality. If you do nothing about racist sifts, you can protest all you like, You can tell me that you MAY have talked to the offender, you can deflect and dodge all you want, but talk is cheap, and the implication will be that if you do nothing, then you must share those views.

Actually, no, racism is pretty black and white. You either view all humans as equals...or you don't. It's quite simple actually. The jury is actually in on this. Racism is not merely an opinion, It's bad mmkay? It's been in a few papers, you might have heard about it.

I already took a break from this site because you refused to do anything about Lantern and nothing has changed with the current racist du jour. It's clear that you've given up on this site and don't care about the community (except when an anniversary rolls around) as it is a mere shadow of its former self.

This is no longer a tenable situation for myself (and clearly for others who have already left the site because of your pattern of failures dealing with blankfist, chingalera, et al). Unlike you, I chose to act.

Please delete my account, effective immediately.

dag says...

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

I know you want this person banned, but it's not going to happen for now. Maybe I've even had private words with this person on the matter, but that's my job, and ... as angry as you might feel - my only counsel is to say that things are rarely black and white - and human behaviour is complex.

If this is one of those things that you just can't accept, perhaps it's time to take a break. I can understand that.

I'll keep tilting and windmills and enjoying the occasional sycophantic up vote.

VoodooV said:

Seriously? That's your response? Some people agree with bob so it's ok to post racist shit? Allow me to post child porn then, allow me to post some WBC "god hates fags" shit. Some people agree with that shit, so by that logic, it must be allowed. Your guidelines say don't post racist stuff, but I must have missed the part that said "unless some people agree with it, then it's ok"

You're worried about group think? on the internet???? HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! You're tilting against windmills on that one because you're a little late to the party, dag. Besides, if racism not being tolerated is group think, then sign me up! EVERY site...EVERY SITE leans a certain way, dictated by the particular community (even a dying community like ours). If this nonsense of "some people agree with it" exemption is your new excuse, then you're no better than CNN or other media outlets, who allow all sorts preposterous shit to air, because they're trying to pretend to be 50/50 on every issue, and don't debunk things that they know are incorrect...because hey..some people believe it, so it's ok. Or is it just to feed the controversy and get more clicks? Cuz that's another thing the press does. They don't care about reality, they just want that sweet ad revenue.

I don't get what the problem is, you've banned people for racist stuff before, why is it so difficult now? These are your own rules dag. When are you going to enforce them? If you're not going to enforce them, then take those rules down. If you're not going to do that, then you might as well shut this site down, or just revel in the apathy that surrounds this site and enjoy your sycophantic upvotes?

You've got ample evidence, you've got a slew of clearly racist videos, you've got him abusing the ignore system in regards to @newtboy, and all you have to do is look at his comment history to see more reasons to get him out of here.

Do your job!

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, John Oliver: Voting, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

oritteropo says...

At the point of separation, the booster has jettisoned its entire payload and most of its fuel, so the energy required for the return leg should be significantly less than the initial burn.

As far as I know boosters would normally have some fuel left at separation, so the question is really how much more fuel is required for the return than the normal safety margin?

If the answer is "none" then you get your booster back almost for free... any higher amount is a tradeoff of cost of booster vs reduced payload.

Every account I've read suggests that if it can be made to work then it's a large cost saving, but then they said that about the Space Shuttle too.

VoodooV said:

Can someone edumacate me? I get that the point of this seems to be the achievement of reusable rockets. But the fuel required to slow the rocket and stabilize it for landing seems counterproductive. Or has the cost of rocket fuel compared to the cost of building new rockets made it so that they don't care about the extra rocket fuel they burn now?

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos