>> ^my15minutes:
shroom was banned for breaking what was already an established rule.

Actually there was no established rule which is probably a large part of why he was suspended rather than banned. The 'vote only on video content' rule came about as a result of the QM siftquisition, not the other way around.

>> ^quantumushroom:
> Gerrymandering ... Trying to pin it on just one party is ...

... in this case, completely warranted. they are protesting specific acts.
by specific Republicans, as outlined in the description.
and hinted at further in my notes above. i'd be happy to spell it out for you.

why not sift a clip of specific Democrats, doing it? if true, and relevant, i'll ^vote.
but you blow this off, just because the ones doing it are 'on your team'?

> ...it was Republicans who ended slavery.

yeah, so we've heard.
whenever the words 'black' and 'Republican' are used in the same sentence.

the kneejerk 'party of Lincoln' response. useless high school crap.
skipping 100 years of constant change, in all American political parties, since then.

you can't find a more recent example, of your party's equal rights leadership?
fuck, i'm a Libertarian, and i can list Republicans in Congress that qualify!

> So who exactly is keeping Blacks down?
> Probably the folks telling Blacks they are still slaves (rhymes with temocrat).

ooh! how many guesses do i get? is it the same party that has a black guy running?

> An "Historically Black" university complaining of racism? Go ahead and let that one sink in.

by all means, please do. let that one sink in.

were most "historically black" universities founded, due to their desire, to remain segregated?
were blacks being invited to attend "historically white" universities?
and then refusing to attend??


great odin's beard, shroom. honestly.

why do you think i've invited smart conservatives, that i've met, to this site?
you represent them so poorly. and you refuse to learn, from anyone else.

>> ^joedirt:
Wow, the same crowd that brings you siftquititions ...

what 'crowd' would that be?

shroom was banned for breaking what was already an established rule.
going on a vindictive downvote spree. comments had nothing to do with it.

no apology, or admission of any wrongdoing, on his part of course.
he was banned for 2 weeks, and has already been back for longer than that.

and gets to have people kiss his ass now, in the name of their warped view of this, as a free speech issue. which it never was.

the only valid point you made, joe, is that this was maybe more like blog material, than sift talk, because some people might not think it was just for fun.
fine. rest of what you said was crap, and a little surprising, coming from someone who documents this kind of issue-diversion crap, in political coverage, all the time.
yes. i scan, and appreciate, your playlists.

i'll do you the favor of informing you of my two cents on this subject, so that you know where i stand, and you can respond.
because i have that much respect for you, and wouldn't complain about you as part of a crowd, and then not tell you to your face, so to speak.
if you'd prefer that this be continued elsewhere, or in private, and not on a sifttalk post, that's fine, too.

High schools need to update their anti-drug programs to show videos like these as incentive to never take shrooms or you'll turn into a skinny horse-headed guy wearing nothing but suspenders and a codpiece.

For more details on "Shrooms":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrooms_%28film%29

and i upvoted
>> this comment ^ by blankfist
for his willingness to ask this question:

Why not suspend me?

and nothing more, that he said, in that chunk. and here is my answer.

first offense, that sofaking & you sorted out lickety-split.
anyone here see a second offense, on their horizons?
or under the impression that this was shroom's second? or third?

which is taking a while...
because i haven't looked in this page since my last post, 2 days ago now.

and, shroom?
if your goal is to make me, personally, hate you?
you've failed, and will always continue to do so.

oh, and, there's just one more thing.

master yoda?
if you haven't already done so (and i missed the post, in the ocean, of what were really some great posts i upped, btw), would you please
*unsticky this, and i'll buy everyone a pint of ben & jerry's.

>> ^MINK:
"i'm not putting up with right wing shitheads anymore!"
is that hypocrisy i smell cooking?

remove "right-wing". smell better? i sure think so.
i wouldn't care for the "left-wing" version of shroom any more, i assure you. and yes, they exist, and we've met them, and they're not helping either.

wtf does "right wing" mean anyway?

politically conservative.
primarily associated with the social, rather than the fiscal, sense.
social conservatism is, foremost, pro-choice. that is the largest plank, currently in the social conservative platform, in the states, today. and has been for most of my lifetime.

this does not, by any means, imply fiscal conservatism, however, which is a point many Libertarians here stress.

this is the internet. its strengths are its weaknesses.
weakness: communities get too big and don't work
strength: you can fuck off and start your own
ad infinitum.

^ check.

there's just one thing, i want to say.

about me, about you, shroom and everyone else here, and the wonderful things i've gotten to read, and watch, on this page and so many others.

it's the last thing i wrote on my homepage, here. thanks.

-o

hello, friend. yes, you. for if you can read this, then you are that. do you like music?
wanna' be me, for the next 5 minutes? open this, in a window or tab, at 1/3 volume:

http://www.videosift.com/video/TATU-Cosmos-Outer-Space

...and then, in another, open this at full volume:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagan-Cosmos-Intro

and hit play on both. and know that i am in awe of us all, and none more so than TEDsters, Mensa, and most of the people i've met at this site. yes, even shroom. i don't want him banned either. i want him to grow the fuck up and start listening, and trying to understand, as much as the rest of us are.
and what happened, was not because of anything i did. or dag did. it was because of what shroom's been doing, most of the time, since long before i got here, and everyone here can agree on that much, at least, i'm positive.

that's why i just upvote or pass. you're all way too smart, too observant, and trying too hard, to ever be downvoted, in my humble opinion.
i'm home. and i'm getting a charter. asap. whaddya' think, for nametextcol...
blue? or black?

- opie
(owen paul)
rochester, ny, usa
pale blue dot
unfashionable western spiral arm, milky way

shroom? just so there's no doubt.

i detest what you've revealed of yourself here, so far.

but i would still defend, to the siftdeath, your ability to say it.

also, i'd like this on the record, in regards to downvoting, in general.

i have never once taken a single one of ant's downvotes against him, and he knows that because i told him so. we all frequently joke about them.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Eddie-commercials-we-had-to-endure

i have never felt ant was targeting me, or anyone else to my knowledge, just being harsh yet honest.

and his votes given / received ratio shows a genuine interest in selecting the best and worst for their appropriate thumbage, before the clip has sifted, and those less interested in manning the churn, suddenly appear.

ant was one of the first, to upvote the one thing i really cared about here.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Shadow-Puppets-animation-by-Chuck-Gamble

and i notice him secretly upvoting my comments.

besides, he's the yin to my yang. i dig ant.

if all that shroom did, to deserve any of this, was downvote any one guy's shit honestly?

we would not be having this conversation, and every one of you knew that, about him, long before i got here.

ps.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Rottenseed, I agree that all of my15minutes videos suck.

funny. the way i read that, rottenseed was talking to, and about, K0MMIE. not me.

i guess we all see what we want to, though.

and, if you're willing to provide some more useful and specific criticism, i'd happily accept it, Holmz. here, or in private, at your convenience.

i've only been active here 2 months. but i honestly didn't think anyone had a problem with TED clips, a couple funny commercials, some old TV intros, a single Ron Paul vid, and one cute sift.

pps. were this an isolated incident, with shroom, the way it was with TheSofaKing, three weeks back, dumping on blankfist?

http://sofa.videosift.com#comment-282621

that's how i'd handle shroom.

but this incident, is about as isolated, as Paris Hilton at a circle jerk.

which is a fucking shame, because TheSofaKing needed only the merest of prodding to see the error of his ways instantly.

thank you all again for your time, and attention, to keeping the sift the kind of place that you want it to be.

i will happily submit to the will of the Jedi Council.

- owen

ok. obviously i have a little explaining to do too. so, here's where this all starts, for me:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gay-adoption-PSA

came across that on the unsifted queue, all sorted the way i like, and i start watching, and it's weird, but i seem to think it has a weird way of actually trying to say something important.

so then i look at the sifter, and it's shroom. and honestly, i'm pleasantly surprised.
'cuz i didn't see anything, attacking the message, from him. and it reminded me of another very recent, much cooler, and pretty fucking amazing sift, all things considered, by Doc_M:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-after-his-close-New-Hampshire-loss-Yes-We-Can

which really blew me away, and i told him so. because, as a Lib, i really am very accustomed to being able to work almost as well with the (Social Liberal) Dems, as the (normally Fiscal Conservative) Reps.

i just honestly don't think shroom is here to get along, the way that i often see Doc and deedub making real efforts to get along with everyone, and make honest arguments, when they can't agree.

here's another guy on the mostly-right, who happens to be just about the sharpest i've seen on YouTube, from a mostly conservative stance:

http://www.videosift.com/member/justa11en

because he does a better job, of making sharp, honest arguments, and defending his point of view, than (and SO not intended as a slam on Doc or Deedub) anyone i've seen defend a Conservative point fo view, here at the sift.

which is exactly why i asked him to create a login here, for possible future use, after he uploaded this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-Day-Resolution

i do not see, in shroom, what i see in the other 3 i mention. i don't think he's here to get along. i think he's here to push buttons.
and i know many here that wholeheartedly agree, and we all let him, because we're 10 times more tolerant than he'll ever be, and he knows it, and it probably really pisses him off.

to my knowledge, we have more than just the "mores" here. we have some "folkways". and one of 'em says, you try hard not to downvote, while unsifted, without a comment/reason.
the second, and more important, says you don't target an individual, and downvote their queue with clearly nothing more than malice in mind.

would shroom like to explain to anyone here, what he found so distasteful, about 2 malaysian kids holding hands?
while he tosses up a hacked-up PSA, from the 80's, about domestic violence, that we're supposed to find fucking amusing now?
it's the only upvote i've ever given here, that i genuinely regret.

because unlike the other 2 clips, that i did really like, and gave an honest (if confused) upvote, that one i only upvoted, in a vain attempt to be able to say what i wanted to tell him, and not have him do, the very thing he did anyway.

that's not all i have to say about the whole damn thing, but i also don't want to waste anyone's time. i just thought this was the pertinent timeline, from my point of view, and i'd be happy to bookmark this, answer any questions, as soon and as accurately as i can, and let everyone else here decide what, if anything, should happen to either of us.

thank you, all, for taking the time to read this. srsly.

- owen / m15

what, no channel?

Someone else can do that, if they wish. They have powers.

no intellectually polarizing description?

I have my points of view and defend them. It angers many and delights others.

a mere 3 tags, all neutral and accurate?

I'm surprised myself. Submissions are three times as hard to pass GO when attached to "QM". That's called "branding".

you're getting lazy, shroom.

I'm already there.

more laziness in the channel assignments. tsk tsk.

you do realize that this is just 2 different commercials spliced together, to get a laugh out of what was orignially a PSA against domestic violence, right, shroom? interesting choice of siftage.
weren't y'all suposed to be the family values bunch?