https://medivizor.com/blog/2017/10/22/war-on-cancer-metaphors/

“For me, having lost my husband, it’s frustrating to hear publicly people saying to John McCain, ‘If anybody can beat this you can — you’re so tough.’ Not that it’s intentionally hurtful, but it does leave those of us who’ve lost a loved one thinking, ‘Was my loved one not tough enough? Did he not fight hard enough?'” ~Dannagal Goldthwaite Young @dannagal

it does remind me of elo's song from "DISCOvery"(where i lost my love for them). definitely more rock than disco.

I've reconsidered. Must *kill video. Lost the love for it. Its very meh.

Please tell me why do birds
Sing when you're near me?
Sing when you're close to me?
They say that I'm a fool
For loving you deeply
Loving you secretly

But I crash in my mind
Whenever you are near
Getting deaf, dumb and blind
Just drowning in despair
I am lost in your flame
It's burning like the sun
And I call out your name
The moment you are gone

Please tell me why can't I
Breathe when you're near me?
Breathe when you're close to me?
I know you know I'm lost
In loving you deeply
Loving you secretly
Secretly

But I crash in my mind
Whenever you are near
Getting deaf, dumb and blind
Just drowning in despair
I am lost in your flame
It's burning like the sun
And I call out your name
The moment you are gone

Tomorrow
I'll tell it all tomorrow
Or the day after tomorrow
I'm sure I'll tell you then

Well I crash in my mind
Whenever you are near
Getting deaf, dumb and blind
Just drowning in despair
I am lost in your flame
It's burning like the sun
And I call out your name
The moment you are gone
The moment you are gone

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.

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.

I do know that what I'm seeing is a historical first, a building with scattered fires and questionable and unsubstantiated structural damage falling like a dropped curtain. I go back and forth on what the cause could have been, and was for a time comfortable with NIST's original assumptions that the emergency generators were pumping diesel into the blaze, but they recanted on that detail.

I have to work pretty hard to think of this as a natural phenomena of building failure. I know you don't trust intuition or what we see with our own eyes, but do you see it? Do you rely on reports and what people say on websites? Jeez, I just donno.

And Volumptuous, I removed it from the lies channel, because I don't know who's lying. Sorry.

>> ^shuac:
Awesome, both scene and show. Something not commonly known: the actor that plays Dan Dority is the same that portrayed Warren, the rotund retard and brother to Cameron Diaz's character, from There's Something About Mary. Frank and Beans!

Omfg, you're right. I watched the entire series and not once did I ever recognize him as Warren.

Such an outstanding show in every conceivable way.

And I'd say that old adage would be best worded, "Better to have loved and lost then loved and never lost again." Doesn't flow as smoothly, but it sure is true.

>> ^thepinky

I don't consider the comment I made "drive-by". I would make the same of a reasonably intelligent man who runs a company that allows its executives and managers to embezzle company funds, or sexually harass their subordinates. As smart as some people can be, and I'm sure the current Pope has enough intelligence, turning a blind eye to injustices which you have the power to stop sort of dilutes that intelligence somewhat.

You say that "science cannot explain the cosmos", and you know something, you are entirely correct making that statement at this point in time. I cannot fault you for it, for the exact same reasons that no more than 60-80 years ago science couldn't explain, nor produce, lasers, wireless technology (Tesla aside), heavier than air flying machines, or going to the Moon. Hundreds of years before that, the science of the times couldn't explain lightning, what causes a baby to be formed, what causes sickness and disease, etc, etc, etc. To suggest that "science cannot explain the cosmos" and leave that as a definitive is slightly ignorant considering the long history of what science "could not explain", yet now explains with a lot of detail and accuracy. 99.999999999% of the cosmos is unexplainable at present, however, this does not mean it will always be so. I'd also appreciate what it is that has instilled this unshakable belief that science, or perhaps the human species, will never explain the origins of the cosmos? Is there a particular failure due to science which spurred this for you personally? The fair maiden Curiosity, she constantly plucks at my heart-strings.

I'm slightly taken aback by your final comment: "basing your beliefs on something other than the things that have failed us so far: That is, the cold, hard, unhelpful facts." This is striking, as for myself I see these cold, hard facts which science has provided us with to be beautiful and vivid. There is much more complexity to our world, the cosmos, and ourselves than we ever could've possibly imagined and these horrible facts brought to our attention have shown these wonderful things to us. I could never suggest that the facts we currently hold onto have failed us, far from the truth, unless, of course, I have completely misinterpreted your comment, in which case I apologise.

I have discussions with coworkers about facts and reason and rationality from time to time, and I am commonly referred to as "cold". I realise why people see it as such, because the natural human response to most things is an emotional response, not a rational one. For instance, when I talk about how pointless it is to have cemetaries, I am shot a dozen evil eyes. "But they're for the people who have lost their loved ones! So they can visit them!" they'll say. And I'll respond by asking if you died today, in one hundred years, or even fifty, who is going to visit your tombstone? We live on a planet with limited space, and using up so much of it for the dead, when the living could use it, seems unfair, and irrational.

One of our species greatest flaws, which I attribute to people who cannot fathom how Evolution works in millions and billions of years, is that we have no long-term forethought. We marvel at our ability to plan, but fail to understand that we only really plan for the short term. Only for our own lives, how selfish, is it not? We don't plan for two centuries down the road, for what our children and grandchildren will have after we are gone. As much as we fear it, accepting that this measure of entropy and decay we call "time" will never end for the rest of the cosmos (at least not for a few trillion trillion years) could help our species a lot in the centuries to come.

One day, I'd like to imagine that my ancestors will watch a broadcast from their home of our Sun dying and swallowing up the inner planets of our solar system, long, long, long after we've gone to find homes throughout the galaxy.

whoever posted Lost in Love wins-
I dinna even know that was going down, the other guys made me post the one that made it, i was guilt-ridden for involvement initially, so I discarded the other one, never even wore any cheese... and furthermore, i am under the jurisdickshuns of no court!!!

Exonerated!!!!

I'm glad to see there is interest in this subject including wazant's kicking the dead body of pinball generally. I've seen this documentary- I agree with its hype that its about our American economy in general. We have too much stuff. Should I buy a new Stern pinball game that doesn't seem as cool to me as Funhouse, for example- especially comparing the prices ( $4699 vs. $1300 on ebay). People didn't used to have as many choices for stuff to blow money on. Now, we also have too much information via this internet. It sections us all off in these pretend worlds where we're too obsessed about any one subject. People don't go out anymore because we have home entertainment. Also, people sound like little brats when they talk hatefully of each other on these forums because they don't risk getting their faces punched in if they talked smack in person.
Ask yourself, is music better because of mp3s? Is your enjoyment of it better? I miss hearing about new music from my friends instead of Pandora. I really am impressed by Pandora but its old music that I'm hearing. Don't we have to take seriously the gravity that forces us to consume retro fodder because this is a new option brought to us by DVR's and the internet. If I can rummage through the best music of the latter half of the past century, doesn't that make it harder for new music to move a whole nation like the Beatles did? Obviously, we have to accept that there are up and downs in cycles. Music is definitely in a down one. Hannah Montana is the biggest selling live show. Now, I'm 31 so its easy for younger people to discard my perspective as outdated. O.K. but have you condidered that if acts like Beck, The Beastie Boys and whomever from the 90's are already done compared to the Rolling Stones who performed well into their 50's, how do you think My Chemical Romance of your new metal act will fare in only 5 years? If we follow this trend music and everything else will be marketed to children in the womb and we'll all have to tolerate Barney type music "I like you, you like me...." In a similar observation, can we all celebrate Britney Spears going the way of the do do bird? Now, I'm genuinely worried about her life because she has been manufactured used and thrown away by the corporate machine that made her right after two sorority ditz's narrate her suicide on live paparazzi video. This is what I'm talking about. Half the country loves American Idol, the other want to shove a karaoke mic up the fat slob pitifully trying to seduce a girl by singing the Righteous Brother's "You lost that loving feeling". In the 80's my Dad turned me on to Boston. Everybody listened to the same music- even if you grew, evolved and quested for deeper "alternative" acts- you started out at the Beatles or something. Although, I did despise my folks popularizing Santana and that Matchbox 20 dude... Gawd! No.

Anyway, a little more back to topic. The nintendo wii grows affection for the physical play of pinball but pinball will gain no traction unless the tykes taste it and like it. We should appreciate good design because the ancient past is full of it and we are often too ignorant or jaded to pay respect where it is due. Also, don't get too excited about throwing broken stuff away so much that what makes America good is thrown out with its formerly dominant auto industry.

Persephone, in the context of the argument, I'm assuming you're including me in what you see as the malicious portion of VS, so here are my thoughts.

I did my level best to speak to you as a person, and make points that could be argued for or against using facts and logic. (You have, in fact, corrected me at least once for an untrue statement that I made.) I quoted from papers that you yourself cited, as well as an admittedly brief analysis of the papers, including weaknesses and commentary on their own use. I did my best to avoid personal attacks, but perhaps I stepped over the line. I feel that I did not, but if I did, then I apologize.

However, I did respond in such a large volume due to several reasons. One, the level of vigor with which you defended homeopathy, compared to the level of confidence that I have in my belief that homeopathy is indefensible medically and scientifically, made me feel that I should express my position. (I responded to other sifters in comparable depth to their own comments.) Second, I like fostering discussion in my collective, which has educated me to a number of new things, and which is what keeps bringing me back to VS. And third, I responded due to a part of a comment you made:

"So, Gluonium, have you even managed to make a baby, least of all sit up in the wee hours of the night trying to soothe one screaming from pain? No? It takes a big brave heart to get through parenting the early childhood years. In case you haven't been there yet, don't be too quick to rule out what you'll try, in an effort to care for a child in great need."

That comment, be it driven or not by Gluoniom's previous comments or even my own, was, I feel, unfair and not in the spirit of level-headed discourse. It amounted to a personal attack of your own, calling into question your fellow sifter's personal experiences, or lack thereof, which added nothing to the current topic at hand. In this case, the emotional need for a parent to care for one's child has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a specific method of care. It's like saying, I'm grieving for a loved one who has passed and am dealing with that grief by visiting a psychic, you can't say psychics are bunk because you haven't lost a loved one and felt the need to see them again.

In addition to that, even assuming that your life experiences had been topical, in the context of a scientific debate, which rests upon factual evidence, most life stories are a result of the truth at best, and distractions from the truth at worst; they are not considered to be always representative of facts. It's the same reason why politicians like to tell stories about the little kids they met, it's because it's relatively easy to take a single case and use it in whatever way one wants. There's a saying among scientists: "The plural of anecdote is not data." So, especially in my collective, anecdotes do not always add something to a conversation.

So, perhaps I was in the wrong for something I wrote. I do believe that other sifters said things that did more to damage conversation than aid it. But, that being said, I feel that you also stepped out of line in your own comments.

In the future, I will certainly do my best to keep a civil tongue in my head where appropriate, although I will not stop debating issues that may upset others by virtue of their content alone. I would hope that you, and all other sifters, also take this mindset to heart.

Cool, he's a DJ? So can I go up and ask for a request when he's spinning records? Like "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" or something?

But wait, how does a DJ get famous...all they do is just play others music.