They took your computer away for a month and then tricked you into giving them more money? Wow, I'm beginning to feel a kind of grudging respect for Apple.

I would so watch that.

Who do you think would ally with who? I mean, you have three sides and let's assume equal numbers.

The muslims would stay the hell away from the jews. Would they try a deal with the christians? I imagine the christians would see it as beneath themselves to deal with anyone (presuming they're white americans, say). Would the jews consider reaching out to either side? It would be so interesting. I mean, no side is going to attack another without an alliance because they'd have lower numbers afterwards and would therefore be disadvantaged fighting the third group. You might even end up with an awkward peace with no fighting at all!

I can see I will be pondering this evilly for some time.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I see a great reality show in this:
Fundamentalist Island: The Ultimate Grudge Match.
Radical Jews, Christians and Muslims battle for religious supremacy on a desert island, armed only with hatred and their bare hands. Last man standing gets to live on a religiously purified island... until he eventually dies alone of dehydration or scurvy, or gets run through by a wild boar or mauled by a polar bear.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I see a great reality show in this:
Fundamentalist Island: The Ultimate Grudge Match.
Radical Jews, Christians and Muslims battle for religious supremacy on a desert island, armed only with hatred and their bare hands. Last man standing gets to live on a religiously purified island... until he eventually dies alone of dehydration or scurvy, or gets run through by a wild boar or mauled by a polar bear.


Carlin would be proud....

^I see a great reality show in this:

Fundamentalist Island: The Ultimate Grudge Match.

Radical Jews, Christians and Muslims battle for religious supremacy on a desert island, armed only with hatred and their bare hands. Last man standing gets to live on a religiously purified island... until he eventually dies alone of dehydration or scurvy, or gets run through by a wild boar or mauled by a polar bear.

Well I don't have any problems doing it as long as people understand that people make mistakes and that I personally have no grudges on the sift. All videos I am deading are in a random order for I am viewing many at a time and deading only ones that do not play for myself. I have come across questionable ones and I do not mean to dead them if they play in England or Australia or even California as opposed to Texas.
Thanks for the support!

Ok-true confessions time for chog with dytop's as a litmus/shopping list:
A: Accusation
R: Response/Re-nig


choggie's rap sheet -that I know of

A:-was banned for discarding other people's posts that he did not approve of.

R:-slapped on the hand, banned, slapped again, chuckled.

A:-harassment of site owner/site owner's wife.

R: Just trying to be like dag, no s'rsly, never got to have a meaningful conversation with her in real-time...Hope she does not hate me for the interview, or the, "Yer too far earth to want to come back or suffer us pathetically backwards humans" sorta vibe I threw at her...she knows good food, she knows good people, she's a keeper.

A:-harassment of a number of videosifters through aggressive private comments.

R: Fuck em if they can't take medicine or a ball-bustin' or mirror glance, I welcome all who hold grudges and foul memories, back to the table of mutual interaction...including (insert what you think happened here), cubed. Besides....none of the shit was private anyhow until whiners cut and pated private comments..THEY COULD NOT FUCKING DEAL WITH!!!....I simply talk shit to bring people's own horseshit into daylight-they then address the forum with tattles because they feel so inclined to not look at themselves....fuck em, I love everybody.

A:-harassment of people over the phone/email.

R. Person(s)...Viable??? i.e. Still breathing??..Call me-713-469-2384 or email me...or ignore. Yer folks call.

A:-purposely drove people he did not like off the site.
R: Uh, NO!?...Think again-They volunteered, as do we all.


A:Has said extremely inappropriate things in the face of others' personal tragedies.

R: The dead in politics, can go fuck themselves-If I was insensitive to something or someone on the past, who has done the 180 degrees from something they regret or wold rather have been another way??....Explain and take comfort in the illusion, that changes have transpired, and I might consider man-sex if you were not so goddamn ugly! or get the fuck OVER it, we're all dysfunctional amalgams of the experiences we live with, are dealt, and create.

"If anyone has more to add, let me know...."(DSTFURTDY)

I'm surprised at you choggie. Those "you know who you are" lines are rather passive and indirect... doesn't suit you.

I don't have any shady doings here, really. @kronosposeidon and I have had 2 (entirely public) spats in the past, though I don't think there's any grudges left over from either. @LadyDeath took to harassing me on a regular basis after she took this downvote personally. I didn't hesitate to give it right back, though, and I guess that wasn't the mature thing to do. Eventually, though, it seems she had more fun harassing @LittleRed and @thepinky, so she left me alone. And of course, nothing has made this site more enjoyable for me than her absence.

I do wish I could hobble @ant for his constant misuse of NSFW invocations. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could.

Hey, I was higher than taxes when I came up with that suggestion-
For me, it's a "quality" definition issue. Seems to me, more sift-talk posts get quality invocations than do videos-Promotes are also a personal preference, based on the value/quality to the person handing out points-i.e., personal preference.

Here in the FAQ sheet it states-"Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content."

I have seen sift folks hand out a shit load of "quality" invocations because they LIKE the sifter-I have also seen good content not receive votes because they DISLIKE the sifter.

What of the videos that are repeatedly promoted because people dig em, or for the effect it has in the thread, etc.?? This kind of activity keeps the place dynamic and interesting, innit?? Kinna makes the original submitter get a warm feeling inside, huh?? Awwwwwww!


*drifting off-topic>>>> When I down vote most of the news bites I see, it's not because I dislike the sifter-I dislike their contributions to the place, as well as the banter that follows, because I maintain that network news is poisonous disinformation and diversion. Period. Also hate most videos of farting or self-mutilation.

(I do like the cat fart video now since I figured out how to do something better and faster in future... don't like the submitter because his grungyness refuses to do anything but ignore, which is fine, keep up the good work, and stick to your principles!>Love your politics by the way, moving closer to all-out anarchy, which we don't welcome but are capable of dealing with)

So, in not-voting for a video because of who sifted it, is not a user simply "down-voting" it and the user? I have always maintained as well, that the lop-sided down-to-up number of votes overall is a problem. When a down vote shows up on someone's post (be honest with yourselves) it is often taken as a personal attack, or confused with some animosity or personal grudge, or in ant's case, misconstrued as some non-linear freakout!! It's simply a thumbs down for whatever reason or a thumbs up for who gives a rat's ass-want more status or points, post more viddies!!

I share the gnawing idea that something should be done to further codify these 2 invocations only because they are too similar in effect and sentiment, cost the same price(do they??), and perform similar functions. Maybe hand out more points and/or more often, rewards for deadpool fixes-and add a means of obtaining power points for cleaning up the dead/removed/copyright etc. videos-1 point for 25 "dead" invocations??...and make it retroactive considering I didded about 1000 Olberman vids last week??!! WOOOOOF!

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

Context is everything. Name calling with malice is bad. It's not the words themselves, but the spirit in which they are used. Thanks >> ^JiggaJonson:
Srry chief, I can be rather bitter after developing a grudge. I'll throttle down but are gay epithets still fair game? e.g. cock-toucher or asshole masticator ?? jk jk
In reply to this comment by dag:
"Maybe you finally got the sand out of that black vagina of yours." Please ratchet down the racial epithets. It's bad for the Sift. Thanks.

Srry chief, I can be rather bitter after developing a grudge. I'll throttle down but are gay epithets still fair game? e.g. cock-toucher or asshole masticator ?? jk jk

In reply to this comment by dag:
"Maybe you finally got the sand out of that black vagina of yours." Please ratchet down the racial epithets. It's bad for the Sift. Thanks.

Sniff...this video reeks. It smells remarkably like a creationist "science" piece.

No mention of P2P networks? Broadcast censorship (however infuriating) is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I especially like the bit where their grudge against Al Gore is what prompted them to "dig deeper". Very classy.

No business is more secure and profitable than a monopoly. If you have the ways and means, why would you not want to make it impossible for anyone to challenge your position? It's fundamental strategy.

Hey ya fuckin' shmoo...bea says yer good people-I thought you were just trouble with a limp t-I hold no grudges, pull no punches, and welcome the banter-no hard feelings from my end of the world-Carry on and welcome back....hobbles!

Heh, fair enough. I didn't mean to be patronizing.. it just came so naturally.

Well, I think I almost completely agree in that definition. There's plenty of other content that intends to arouse the viewer without actually being porn though, a reading of an erotic novel, commercials (usually beer commercials) and such all intends to arouse the view, but should not be considered porn either.

To be pornography, it should contain two things: 1) the intention to arouse the viewer 2) actual sexual content.

A woman suggestively eating a banana isn't porn. Elderly (or younger) women sitting in a circle masturbating is certainly skating the borders of it, even it it's framed as if not to arouse - but instead be hilarious. It's all a big gray area. I'm not certain dag and lucky actually meant pornography when they wrote it in the faq though, it's basically just to keep sexually explicit content to a minimum (I think). And this is certainly pretty explicit.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I don't think you understand the subtleties of interpersonal relationships. I understand for a collectivist sociopath these nuances can be difficult to comprehend and put into practice, so let me help you out here. You see, you cannot compare what you do and who you are to someone like gwiz665. Why? Because people like gwiz. He's got what we normal, adjusted people call "redeemable qualities". I'll give you a moment while you write that term down in your notes.

It's kind of like family. Gwiz has a falling out with some people on the Sift, then in a matter of weeks all is forgiven because he has these redeemable qualities I was speaking of earlier. See? We like him. Critical thinking question: do you think anyone likes you on here?

In reply to this comment by qualm:
You're lying. I've not made any comments on VS of a sexually violent nature such as yours. Do you realize that you could have been arrested and charged with sexual assault? Even in lock-up you'd be food, Butterballs. My advice to you is to not take any more trips to the US - not until you've undergone some intensive therapy for your little problem: http://history.videosift.com/talk/This-Place-Has-Been-Amazing-But-It-s-Time-To-Leave

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I'm not saying you're a hypocrite for changing your mind about staying, I'm saying you're a hypocrite about your feigned outrage about my comments to you, when you yourself have made comments that were as bad.

I think you should re-consider leaving.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
That is such old news. Funny you think I'm a "hypocrite" for having changed my mind about leaving. But you're right in one sense - you are consistent. You're pals with Blanfist - who thinks it's funny to joke about raping children - and you yourself are a creepy stalker who traveled all the way to Texas from Denmark, only to sexually assault a young woman when there.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Hypocrite.
In reply to this comment by qualm:
You just stick to joking around about gang raping two-year-olds your twisted piece of shit.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I thought you were leaving. Whatever came of that?

In reply to this comment by qualm:
Ok, well I didn't know I had to watch eg., each and every Ron Paul video before I could "legally" downvote. I think this is a wrong-headed policy, for sure. But I'm not going to belabour the point. There's been a shift in tone here since my return and it seems there's a new ilk, and I don't belong here.

I'm sure you're a good egg in meatworld. Good luck.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Are you serious? Hold grudges much? I wasn't the one who called you out - but it looked like a very clear cut case to me. The dates and times of your downvotes indicated that you didn't view the content at all, but just down voted in rapid succession. Regardless of your fervent political beliefs, that's a no-no.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
You made a mistake with that temp ban. If you had taken a minute to look closely at my downvotes you'd have noticed that I was downvoting Ron Paul and right-wing libertarian garbage and not targeting the posts of a particular member, although it may appear that way, if one member submits a large majority of racist-RonPaul or fascist-libertarian content. I'd simply fallen behind on my automatic downvoting of the racist Ron Paul and anarcho-capitalist/fascist propaganda.


An apology and an admission of error posted to Sift Talk would be the right thing to do.