Yeah, I know that, but trance was suggesting you can have multiple decks in a hand (like in blackjack), which is pretty much unheard of in most poker games.

Your video, Pipe Guy - House/Trance/Techno Live, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/imogen-heap-hide-and-seek-ozo-remix-trance-lightshow

imogen heap-hide and seek-ozo remix-trance lightshow has been added as a related post - related requested by enoch.

Haha, I knew I'd open a can of worms....
I enjoy music of all types, trust me. I know the history. I grew up in a radio station, and remember when DJs were the rock Stars of the 70s.

I have no boundaries, and in fact, the more music pushes the boundaries the better, but I still have to feel the groove.
Often, "musicians," get caught up in the medium and forget the composition. I know - I'm an artist, I've been there, created works, not for composition, but to better understand my medium. It's still art, but it's not "ART."

See what I'm saying. There is a whole new generation of not just musicians and composers, but listeners. they have their own new sound, but a lot of the soul is getting filtered out while the artists explore the medium. I know it will come full circle, but I believe we are in a stagnant period of exploration.

And no, I'm not commenting on all those classical musicians, in fact, they are doing the opposite. There are many classical musicians that are taking their instruments in new directions - finally - and breaking out of the Bach & Beethoven standards. (Stereotyping here). My favorite is Stravinsky, who pushed every boundary of his day. and Guys like Rossini, who was the Heavy Metal Rocker of his day. But there comes a time, to break out and use the instruments differently.

And that's what they are doing right now. Breaking out and exploring. Which is great, it will define another period in music. But we're not quite there yet. Publishers and studios, are the bottom feeders, trying to keep the industry alive, but they are manufacturing the lowest common denominator, giving the public some of the most contrived music of our day.

It's okay to criticize music as it evolves and still like it.
If we don't criticize it, then it doesn't evolve. And I think the artists themselves would agree because, once you stop and consider your groves perfect, then there is no point creating more.

You can come to the defense of the genre, but not every piece is perfect. Yes there are better musicians out there, and some worse, and some I like, you won't like, and so on, that's what makes it great. I remember laying on the couch listening to Kraftwork's Autobahn for hours and loving it. That was over 25 years ago. And I've listened to so much more in between. I've heard it, I've studied it in school, spun discs and worked DJ booths, and was literally raised in a radio station. I've heard a lot, and have the knowledge to compare notes.

I'll end this, it's going too long - but suffice to say, this piece here, is okay, but has no crescendo, nothing to keep me on the edge. The grove becomes quite trance, while trying not to be. He's done a great mix up, and I see what he's doing here. He's taken video excerpts and contained and arranged them together. Great... he's experimenting. But it's not perfect, and that's okay. He's worked hard to create something, and as he evolves, he'll create better, that's what it's all about

@newtboy
At this point, you're just arguing because I don't agree.

You continue to nitpick at the semantics of my points, because -

@newtboy said: "Your points are not valid IMO.. ..when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.."

Precisely.

I saw everyone here blindly jump to the defense of an unethical "political thought pundit" (or whatever you wanna label her. Again, semantics).

I figured - 'if they actually knew the bigger picture of the matter, they would see Sark's hypocrisy. I should point that out'

Nope. You believe want you want to believe.

In this, you're just like Trancecoach or Lantern or anyone else that spins or ignores facts.

By your own admission, you don't even care about this topic.

@newtboy said: "I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need."

You then have the audacity to say some shit like -

@newtboy said: "and [you] made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW)."

So
1 - Why the FRECK are you still "debating" with me. if YOU DON'T EVEN CARE!?!?
2 - How the hell can you assert i'm jumping to conclusions, when YOU yourself are the uninformed party?! Admittedly!
3 - Do you realize that referring to a group of people outside of their preferred nomenclature is highly denigrating?

So while I could cite all my sources, what good would that do?

You've clearly already made up your mind about me & my positions

@newtboy said: "Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?"

And the topic itself

@newtboy said: "Gamergate WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues."

Again, all without substantive knowledge of the topic or parties involved.

THAT is the behavior of a fool. i.e. jackass, ass, asshat.

That is the exact behavior that caused you to ignore Trance, Lantern, Bobknight.

They (you) don't know what the fuck they're (you) talking about.
But yet they (you) still ride in on their high-horses to every debate.

So the rest of this is just gonna be me slappin' unsound arguments out yer hands.

I thought many of you, who left comments, would be interested in the article Trance found. I know i was.

And here it is being discussed http://www.reddit.com/r/Archery/comments/2trrc2/a_rebuttal_to_the_lars_andersen_video/

@all those who commented

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

Your PDF source:
- I cannot find the list of 'climate models' constantly referred to, without a clear identification of what models he's referring to, any argument relating to those models is completely besides the point. How can i fact check that? This should be VERY clearly covered early on, it's the most basic of introduction to your work.
- Top of page 3, unscientific jab at a previous scientist's contribution. Can we stick to scientific arguments please?
- What, no uncertainties? Am i in pre-school? How do i know he hasn't taken the top uncertainty of every model and the bottom uncertainty of every real measurement? These graphs are absolute dog shit.
- Figure 3 - no decent scientist would put an arrow pointing to "subsequent reality" in contrast to the models. That arrow points to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, and statistically speaking is fucking worthless (technical term). Plot a trend of the data, this is basic stuff.
- Figure 4 - see previous point, by eye the trend of the data would sit nicely near the conservative estimate made in 1990. If i could see the uncertainties (see previous point) i would know how reasonable this lower estimate was. Without it, i only have the arrow pointing to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, which distractingly exaggerates the difference.
- Figure 5 - again referencing "all climate models" which are not specified. Even if i assume this person is telling the truth, how can i check it?

Now i'm going to single this one out, because i'm particularly annoyed by this:

- Figure 6 - DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A KEY TO SHOW WHAT THE COLOURS MEAN - there is no explanation whatsoever, merely a talk of hotspots and how there isn't one...... and furthermore the source of what he calls the 'real data' links to nothing, and unless i'm mistaken, he blames the scarcity of the source on the government.

Trance.......... you are not applying the correct critical review process. This is absolute hogwash, and is totally unprofessional, and i am not surprised it is not published - i checked for you, btw.

Definitely a *parody to me.
noun, parody.
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing:

Not at all sure what Trance was talking about.

not @Trancecoach 's first trip to the rodeo:
http://videosift.com/video/TDS-2-24-14-Denunciation-Proclamation

i wont call his comment on this thread plagiarizing but rather paraphrasing but on the last thread?
oh yeah..plagiarized ...verbatim.

dammit trance...making us all charlie brown to your lucy.
where is your pride?

godammit trance.......

Sorry, but I'm not really sure that's the same thing.

What trance did was downvote videos on a wide range of subjects purely because of who posted them, and in the case of @enoch, there's proof that he didn't even watch them first.

Your videos are generally on religious topics (creationism in particular) that most people here disagree with, and your comments frequently quote scripture in a fashion that people also disagree with.

For the record, I haven't downvoted any of your videos, so it's not like I'm trying to justify my actions.

I'm still waiting for shiny to respond to my question about what exactly happened, and whether he told anyone about it.

Meanwhile, since nothing has actually been done against trance, the accusations of bias are baseless.

Apparently no one cared when someone down voted all shinys videos (assuming that's what happened) and no one still cares when @Trancecoach did it to multiple members.

I note that he has yet to respond to the accusations either, continuing his trend of being a petty infantile coward.

I think it depends on the person. Some will see the 'admonishment' as a challenge offered by those with no power (remember Chingalera?) and take it as an invitation to become insanely abusive and outrageously vulgar. Others might see it as helpful to understand how their own actions are perceived by others and change the offending behavior.
It would be nice if Trance could admit why he did what he does (to himself at least), but it's far more important that he stop, understanding or not. IF he can't get the message from the community, the rules should be applied. He's had that clear message now, so the next time there should be no warning, just 2 week ban. If there's a next time after that, it's intentional or unconscious, either way that would indicate he won't stop, and at that point removal is the only option. I hope it doesn't come to that.
I don't like that many 'dissenting voices' have either left or been banned, but it's NEVER because of their viewpoint, it's because of their inappropriate actions (perhaps born from the frustration of being a lone dissenter on many topics? but that's a reason, not an excuse).
As for Dag/Lucky, I would hope their intervention is saved as a last resort, but having a Sift-Dad in charge to settle problems we can't settle amongst ourselves is a GOOD thing...if used in moderation.