I thank you for your support and that you did not take sides. I agree with you on the libel, but let's just let that thread die.

I've made my peace with the people directly involved and I've had my say, even if it hurt. If you feel strongly about it, which I am grateful for, please hold it private with dag or whoever you are discussing it with. Your post is as good an ending note as any to this whole farcical thing.

Vag i am capable of rational thought even when i am upset by something. Everything i said is and was rational and as balanced as i can ever hope to be as a human being with a human brain.

You came to chastise me for getting involved in something which i was INVITED to be a part of (by dint of it being public), and of all the people who DID accept the invite, you chastise me for appealing to reason. I just don't get it. And i do call that ignorant. What word would you prefer? Perhaps "misguided?" I will allow that change, because i feel that this conversation is indeed that - misguided. I know you're a better person than this, but consider what you've said to me:

Libel isn't libel if you make assurances that it's true?
I shouldn't get involved in a public discussion? It wasn't me who wanted it public.
Be finished and stop talking when i reply to your conversation?

I hope we can finish this calmly and as friends. My point is this:

It may or may not be true. If it is, then i'm sorry you guys had to go through it. But it's not for us to know, it's nothing to do with us. That's all i've ever said.

I never tried to offend or make enemies, and that's why i remained 100% neutral, please try to see that. I never sided. The worst thing i ever said was that it was horrible to go public, and i'm sure we can all agree on that? That it should have been dealt with in a better way? Surely in retrospect that's obvious?

What a needless mess, and it turns two people like you and i into combatants in conversation over a simple misunderstanding of intentions.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny.. calm down. Have your opinions. I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to them. I do think that calling someone you know nothing about "ignorant" is a little ridiculous, but that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

I was offended by what you said and felt I needed to defend myself. End of story. We should be able to talk about this calmly.



In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.

1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.

3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.

I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.

The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.

I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.

Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Danny.. calm down. Have your opinions. I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to them. I do think that calling someone you know nothing about "ignorant" is a little ridiculous, but that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

I was offended by what you said and felt I needed to defend myself. End of story. We should be able to talk about this calmly.



In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.

1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.

3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.

I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.

The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.

I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.

Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.

1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.

3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.

I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.

The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.

I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.

Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.

Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.

Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

I only replied to dag.

And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.

I am finished with the matter now.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?

While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:

You've done a horrible, horrible thing.

I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.


You have missed the point dag.

Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.

Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.

What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.

This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:

Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.

I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.

Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"

Am I going to have to pay taxes for the public option? Yes? Ok, I want two things in return. Tax Reform, no more forms and exemptions. Flat tax please. Next I want Tort Reform, no more bullshit Libel and Slander lawsuits.

It's a shame that his points are to amorphous and meaningless to provide a good target for a libel lawsuit. Who watches this clown anyways?

Winnie was perhaps the greatest man of recent generations, though he was not without fault in many aspects of his life. I think we can all agree on that at least.

This was the most severe beat down i've seen. The only shame here is that fox news, the presenter, and the reporter/expert were not brought forward and forced to answer for the bullshit that they spread under the guise of truth. And of course, even if they were, they would twist their way out of it using the verbal equivalent of flashy hand gestures to make you look elsewhere. They would spiral the argument further and further away from the original points WHICH THEY GOT WRONG, citing other examples and completely different situations (which would also be wrong) until eventually you were talking about something completely different and they could claim that you misunderstood them originally.

It's a huge shame that winnie isn't alive today to make a libel claim, that'd be a huge embarassment. But in many ways i'm glad he's not alive to see what a shambles the entire world has turned into after he fought so hard to uphold the things he saw as right.

What a genius, and what a waste.. the lunatics end up running the asylum in the long run no matter what you do to prevent it.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The debate of freedom of speech and censorship is on going, am not parroting one line or the other. I believe in freedom of speech myself and have disagreed with the inane protests that occurred during the publishing cartoons, but the question has to be raised when you have a film that is negative of an entire religion while any similar criticism is labeled as anti-semetic when applied to the Jewish community. The hypocrisy is there.

Of course it's hypocritical. And I decry the suppression of Mein Kampf just as much as Fitna. That's my point. It's absurd to outlaw stupid or unpleasant ideas, because usually the arguments for them are so pathetic that they should be easy to dismiss. That they cause diviseness is an even worse reason for censorship. Imposed homogeneity is far worse - and terribly boring. When unpleasant ideas are not so easily dismissed, it is even more important to guard their right to be expressed. It was certainly more socially cohesive for the Vatican to outlaw the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, but obviously very wrong for it to do so.


Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.

Cross burning is not an act of free speech - it is an act of violent intimidation (not to mention arson). Wearing KKK gear isn't outlawed in the U.S., and it may surprise you to learn that the ACLU itself has fought for the rights of even those loonies to be able to assemble or march in various towns. Saying nigger is clearly not illegal - ever listen to gangsta rap?

Obviously there are limits to free speech. Directly inciting violence/riots, causing dangerous panic ("Fire!" in a theater) and libelous speech are all outlawed, but not because the ideas contained in such speech are "bad". They are outlawed because they can directly cause damage to people and property. I agree that stuff like Fitna falls somewhere in that grey area in that it could cause people to commit violent acts, but it does not itself call for violence upon Muslims.

>> ^spoco2:
they would be libel)... really, some people have no clue.


Liable...

Is your car second hand? ie. Is it possible the alarm is an aftermarket addition to your car?

Oh, and on a late night/early morning noise thing. We had some neighbours across the street having a party so loud that at 3am in our bedroom it was like we were AT the party.

So my wife looked up the number for the local police station and called them in regards to the noise. The officer on the other end said "Why didn't you call 000?" (Our version of 911)... To which she said "Um, because that's for emergencies only" and he grumbled and moaned and bitched a whole lot before saying they would do anything... And I'm still not sure they did, the party may have stopped on its own.

My wife's sister works in the 000 call center here in Melbourne and so we hear the ridiculous things people call 000 about and what a waste of time it is (they HAVE to send an ambulance out no matter how puny the problem is, because if they don't and something did happen and that person died or became more sick they would be libel)... really, some people have no clue.


But, back to you and your annoying car.

Um


he he.

Stuka, I really don't mean to offend anyone with this video, and I guess you have the right to throw epithets at people like me for questioning the events of that day. For all I know you lost a loved one on that day, or as a service member in the wars that followed, so I don't want to challenge what you may hold dear.

Your video shits on the scientists at NIST and all the hard work they did to uncover the cause of the collapses on 9/11 and hopefully prevent future disasters of their kind. It calls the scientists at NIST outright monsters, amorally complicit in the mass murder of 3,000 Americans. It seeks to erase their exemplary service to this nation and replace it with a shit-smear of empty accusation. And it libels these men and woman for nothing more than the self-aggrandizement of complete nobodies who hitched their wagons to the events of 9/11 -- parasites on the dead of that day.