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

The same abuse you mention is no more or less likely to happen in comments here on the main VideoSift site as they are in the Wiki. Our same conduct rules apply accross the VideoSift community. If someone is conducting themselves inappropriately - all we can do remove the content and deal with the poster - as usual.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Who decides what's "true"? The community? Does the majority always get the "truth" right? And if it isn't "true", then what recourse does a banned member have to get it fixed? If they send you an email to fix it and you do so, what's to stop someone else from coming along and changing it right back?
Also, sometimes the "truth" is going to be ugly. No member has been banned for handing out compliments or fixing wrongfully discarded videos. In other words, the truth can be "offensive". So if you post anything that someone finds "offensive", does it automatically mean it should be redacted? And what if someone posts more information about a member than that member wants known to the general public? Sure, it can be redacted, but by then the damage may already have been done.
I know that people are big part of this place. I've said that many times myself. It's out of respect for the people here, past and present, that I want tight controls on articles about members. Would you want anyone to be able to edit your Facebook page, even if you abandoned it ages ago?
I share as much as I want with people here, some members more than others. I don't want all of it or even half of it on VideoSift's wiki, along with editorials about comments and character. Not everything needs or even deserves to be documented, especially while people are still active here, or even alive. Sooner or later it's going to be abused. And magically erasing material won't erase the damage that's been done.
>> ^dag:
I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.
Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

Who decides what's "true"? The community? Does the majority always get the "truth" right? And if it isn't "true", then what recourse does a banned member have to get it fixed? If they send you an email to fix it and you do so, what's to stop someone else from coming along and changing it right back?

Also, sometimes the "truth" is going to be ugly. No member has been banned for handing out compliments or fixing wrongfully discarded videos. In other words, the truth can be "offensive". So if you post anything that someone finds "offensive", does it automatically mean it should be redacted? And what if someone posts more information about a member than that member wants known to the general public? Sure, it can be redacted, but by then the damage may already have been done.

I know that people are big part of this place. I've said that many times myself. It's out of respect for the people here, past and present, that I want tight controls on articles about members. Would you want anyone to be able to edit your Facebook page, even if you abandoned it ages ago?

I share as much as I want with people here, some members more than others. I don't want all of it or even half of it on VideoSift's wiki, along with editorials about comments and character. Not everything needs or even deserves to be documented, especially while people are still active here, or even alive. Sooner or later it's going to be abused. And magically erasing material won't erase the damage that's been done.
>> ^dag:

I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.
Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

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

I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.

Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.


>> ^kronosposeidon:

Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.

And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.

The *dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The * discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:

Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

Then play, don't lash out.

For example, I came across this article during the "blood libel" frenzy you should read, especially the part about Judensau.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Haha. Zing! We can't all be business all the time. Sometimes we have to play.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
It amazes me how quickly you run out of salient things to say, and have to resort to insults.

So let's take each of those in turn.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech.
"Target demographics" isn't even remotely violent, since "target" can also mean "goal", and not just something you shoot at.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.
With the "We will keep a boot on the throat" quote, context matters. For one, Gibbs was quoting Ken Salazar, and for another it's clear from context it's a metaphor for "keep pressure on BP", and not meaning that Ken Salazar plans on literally putting a boot on someone's neck, especially since BP, as a corporation, doesn't actually have a neck.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech.
This one is in another category. It isn't really a metaphor; we're supposed to take it to literally mean he's never going to voluntarily surrender his guns under any circumstance short of, or even including, lethal force. But it's not coupled with statements that people will likely be coming to threaten to kill you if you don't give up your guns. He's not saying that only violence will stop gun control advocates. It's a colorful and bombastic expression of a deeply held belief, but he's also explicitly trying to have a conversation with the other side, not saying that talk will never work.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech.
Now, this one in isolation would be very similar to the above. But it's not in isolation. It's followed by this:

They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
...
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

That's the part that's equivalent to blood libel -- calling people like Van Jones violent revolutionaries who seek to destroy the country, people who can't be negotiated with and who can only be stopped by violence.

That's the thing that made blood libel so insidious. It wasn't an explicit call to violence, it was that it portrayed Jews as implacable murderers who couldn't be reasoned with. Just like Beck says his enemies are.

Oh, and they're both lies, which isn't true of your other examples.

It's a two way street Netrunner. I made my position very clear. Most political speech in the US - including Beck's - is non-violent and in no way relates to blood libel. I made no bones about my position in that regard.

My initial post made no comment about whether Beck used violent or non-violent speech. It was just a full-context description of the Beck quote. I referred back to that initial post because that's what I thought you were talking about. I was mistaken in my understanding of what you were referring too. No need to go all drama-queen about it.

But on to the subtance rather than the pointless. You said, "You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent."

Your whole position seems to be that Beck's whole "you're going to have to shoot me in the head" schtick is the equivalent of Nazi blood libel... You've asked several times 'what's the difference'? I explained the difference. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to accept the explanation. The only possible reason is that you reject the idea that what Beck said is 'not violent', but that you actually in fact and all reality believe that there is no difference.

I've said it afore in the Daily Show thread, and I'll say it again. I do not consider political bombast to be violent, nor is is a 'call' for violence, and it does not inspire or 'gin up' violence either. When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech. When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech. When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech. When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.

No right-minded person who hears these things construes them as actual calls for real-world violence. These are political phrases, passionate rhetoric, 'metaphors' (as you once said), or stupid exaggerations. Bachman does not actually expect people to go around armed and dangerous. Obama does not really expect people to bring guns. Beck does not expect people to get shot in the head (himself or others).

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

I didn't have Beck in mind specifically, but he is certainly included under the same rubrik. No one believes Beck was either calling for himself to be shot in the head, or for others to be actually shot in the head. Would I have used the phrase if I had a TV show? Highly unlikely. However, I defend the right of dummies to run off the mouth. It helps you see who they are. So when right wing bombasts like Beck flap their yaps, I applaud it. Much like when I applaud it when left wing bombasts like Maddow or Maher vomit out the true landscape of their minds.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker I think I'm just about ready to write you off as someone worth replying to.

I asked how you thought what Beck said compared to blood libel, and you said:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

When I challenge you on your assertion, you deny the assertion:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

(emphasis in both is mine)

This is the fundamental problem I have with you. Whatever fact someone uses as the basis of a conclusion, you accuse the speaker of fabricating that fact, even if it's trivially and incontrovertibly validated.

It's just not conducive to civil discourse to casually accuse people of lying. Assume I misunderstood, and just try making your point more explicitly.

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal. Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

I said "criticize". Moving the goalpost to incitement to violence, libel, and slander is the application of a completely different subject. I said in the US you can criticize anyone you want about anything you want. Switching targets to inciting violence, libel, and slander makes a discussion on criticism implausible, as the terms have clear legal definitions - none of which are applicable to a discussion about generic 'criticism'. If that's what you wanted to talk about, then that's what you should have said in the first place, and I am not responsible that inaccuracy.

You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

I said what the difference was quite clearly above. One is a falsehood about a genetic race inspired by a government pogrom. The other is an opinion in a public forum by a private individual. The blood libel issue was a falsehood meant to be taken as a literal description of Jewish religious practice. Bombastic political rhetoric in a free society does NOT in any way equate to blood libel. If it did, then you'd have to shut down every political rally, every newspaper, every news broadcast, every radio station, or personal discussion in the nation. That includes the Videosift - including this very thread. I ask you... What is the moral difference between blood libel and the mischaracterization of what Beck's statement as a call for actual violence? Is not your attempt to falsely equate Beck's comment with actual violence against others just another form of blood libel or 'propoganda'?

Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

Does that mean you are comfortable with censoring speech and thought in the name of the greater good? Does that apply to the political left and thier "contextually violent" rhetoric as well? And who gets to make the decisions about what is or isn't crossing the line?

Nope - I reject the soft totalitariansim of censorship in the name of subjective, whimsical, biased political correctness. Freedom of speech trumps other concerns. The only time freedom of speech becomes dangerous is when it is limited by government, or self-appointed arbiters.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal.

Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

Sorry, but you're doing it again -- asserting conclusions without making an argument. You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

Beck's is more explicitly violent than actual blood libel (though perhaps quite a bit less visceral and imaginative) because he's talking about shooting people in the head.

Here's your own paraphrase of Beck:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[H]e gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

All I'm really changing is adding a gratuitous mention of Jews, and changing "violent communist revolution" into "uses the blood of Christian babies for rituals", which I think are close substitutes in terms of the kind of effect on their audience.

Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who's distributing it. Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

If the idea of blood libel bothers you, so should Beck libel.

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Is this kind of rhetoric a defensible use of speech, something he deserves to be criticized for, or something that possibly constitutes a crime?

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime. I believe in freedom. I would never dare to try to make it a crime for a person to speak their mind on an issue. Such censorship is repulsive to me, and antithetical to a free society. Do I think he 'deserves' criticism? Only in the same sense that anyone 'deserves' to be criticized in a free society for having an opinion.

By comparison, what's your opinion of the historical use of blood libel against Jews? In your opinion, was that a defensible use of speech, something to be merely criticized, or something serious enough to consider a criminal act?

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

All I can hope for is that the right wakes up with a movement that actually cares about the people of America and not the 1% who own 60+% of all capital in the US who would continue to screw everyone over.

I suggest you locate the closest chapter of the Tea Party movement.

Seriously though - what government plan (Democrat OR Republican) has ever resulted in moving that "1% richest" needle? People who get rich get rich, and by definition that means they have tons more money than the average guy. Rich liberals don't give 95% of their wealth to the poor, or gift it to the government for 'fair redistribution' (which means government gets it and the people don't) any more than rich Republicans do. So it is meaningless to blame wealth inequity on 'the right'. Wealth inequality is a factor of the human condition - not any particular political philosophy.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you left out some opinion in there.

Is this kind of rhetoric a defensible use of speech, something he deserves to be criticized for, or something that possibly constitutes a crime?

By comparison, what's your opinion of the historical use of blood libel against Jews? In your opinion, was that a defensible use of speech, something to be merely criticized, or something serious enough to consider a criminal act?

I mean, after all, the blood libel was just a warning to people to keep an eye on their children if they associate with Jews, right?

Blood Libel? Isn't Giffords Jewish too? Poor choice of words.

Oy!

pseudo-science? Hmmm, consider your source...

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm <http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm>

but my personal favorite is this Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ <http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/>

also

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

all that to say is I would not put much worth in that site :-)

I'd rather relying on scientists, researchers, chemists, toxicologists, etc... all professionals who have published studies in peer reviewed journals. But if you think that represents pseudo-science, then it is a sad day for critical thinking.

>> ^teebeenz:

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
>> ^notarobot:
I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.