>> ^Krupo:
Oh man, this is going top 15 or everyone's asleep.


Guess I'm asleep then

Points all well made people. I have a bit of a hangup with bad spelling and grammar as a whole and see it and the people who commit the "crime" in a vey negative light. Thats probably why I started this whole discussion off with that rather rude first posting about Westy (which I have apoligised for previously)
Yes I can understand what he writes so I guess I'm just going to have to get over my hangup when I read his posts

>> ^burdturgler:
Who the hell is Joaquin Phoenix?


You being serious?

Does he suffer from OCD of some sorts? What with all the sniffing, coughing, shirt pulling? Oh and also misses Harris' point by a mile.

Schumi, Schumi, Schumi....I know I'm hogging the posts here, but grant me just one thing extra I have to add. You said the following in a previous post for this video:

>> ^schumi_4_ever:
'BisHOp69, it amuses me that you would go on a rant against the spelling ability of someone who's commenting on a video. The point of commenting on a video is to voice the opinions of what one thinks about the video, the manner in which this is done is hardly of any significance.'

This in itself is a valid point as it expresses your opinion....only thing is, 2 weeks ago you this was part of the description on Colin Farrell/Jonathan Ross interview video posted by alien_concept:

>> ^alien_concept:
'I always thought that Colin Farell was an arrogant dickhead and this interview couldn't of proved me more wrong'

and to this you then replied:

>> ^schumi_4_ever:
'couldn't have. Couldn't Have. COULDN'T HAVE. COULDN'T....HAVE. HAVE. HAVE. HAVE. COULDN'T HAVE. FOR FU*KS SAKE. COULDN'T HAVE.

SHOULDN'T HAVE.

WOULDN'T HAVE.

COULDN'T HAVE.

GODDIT? Good.'

And of course, adding later:

>> ^schumi_4_ever:
'no, the reason why i wrote what i did is because its not even a case of bad grammar, otherwise i'd bother writing full sentences with puncutation. The amount of people saying 'of' instead of 'and' because when they talk they say 'couldn't of' (i dont) is shocking.
im not having a go at the fact that its grammatically wrong, im having a go at the retardedness of it. it harks the downfall of society.'

SO!!!.....I thought you seem to think that the manner in which you voice an opinion is 'hardly of any significance'. But you then tell poor alien_concept he is bringing about the end of civilization by doing exactly that? Mistaking 'couldn't of' with 'couldn't have'. I mean, I could still read and understand it. Where's the problem, eh schumi??? Or am I dealing with 2 different schumis here? Do you perhaps suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder??? And if you are any of shumis other persons, WELCOME TO VIDEOSIFT!

>> ^schumi_4_ever:
'I sincerely disagree. If you feel it OK to speak, spell and/or communicate in in whatever fashion takes you fancy, go ahead. Here's an idea, why don't you swap all your "d's" with "m's", "o's" with "e's" and so on??? I mean it's your choice right? Only at some point, someone will get a bit irritated at having to decipher your code. What is kinda what my issue is with Westy's spelling'
but he's not doing that is he? You've completely blown out of proportion and exagerated his spelling to make your point to counter mine - and therefore its a completely invalid counter argument.
He's not replacing letters in words to the point where it's unreadable. It's still clearly readable and understandable. Clearly it isn't to you, but it is to everyone else. He's not swapping all d's with all m's. Is he. No he is not.
Your response thus far is invalid and void.


Wow...someone is splitting hairs now. Yes I used a fairly extreme example BUT I WAS MAKING A POINT. It's a sliding scale of crappy spelling and writing. Westy might just be misspelling words, but IT'S STILL NOT RIGHT IS IT? Is he writing/spelling correctly? No. Is he? Not he is not. That's my point.

Yes it's still readable, but why does it have to be so bloody bad??? I never said it's unreadable, I said it's like code with some of the words he invents.
And it's not just me asking these questions. Go look at a few other replies to his posts. People have griped.

Now if you please, let him answer my question or not, if he so chooses. I am getting fairly tired of you defending him and making me repeat myself.

Your response thus far is both galling and dull.

>> ^westy:
so you are basing your argument on a jugment call. its not realy the best way to retort to sumones comment. and asside from that regardeess of me and my spelling my argument that US comidy is mostly obvouse is still 100% valid

Westy, yes, I have clearly made my point about your spelling and I am no longer discussing US humour. If you wish to press on with that, feel free, however I shall not. To bring this point closer to a some sort of conclusion, I would still like to ascertain why you spell the way you do. The question has been asked by others, so I am not alone in this.

>> ^schumi_4_ever:
BisHOp69, it amuses me that you would go on a rant against the spelling ability of someone who's commenting on a video. The point of commenting on a video is to voice the opinions of what one thinks about the video, the manner in which this is done is hardly of any significance.

I sincerely disagree. If you feel it OK to speak, spell and/or communicate in in whatever fashion takes you fancy, go ahead. Here's an idea, why don't you swap all your "d's" with "m's", "o's" with "e's" and so on??? I mean it's your choice right? Only at some point, someone will get a bit irritated at having to decipher your code. What is kinda what my issue is with Westy's spelling.

Why don't you think hard about any other reasons why a person may not be able to spell properly. Just think about it.

Well if there are actual reasons Westy can't spell properly, has he (or you) ever heard of a spellchecker? I really hope he has, otherwise completing a resumé might be a pointless endeavour.

David Wohl...OMG... an absolute dumbass

Just to add to my previous post, Hitchens could even criticize her for the extreme nature of her faith, for example the witch doctor blessing her in church, her believing Alaska to be one of the refuge states during the "End Times" etc.
Unfortunately he doesn't do this and says she's a religious fanatic and the only reason he provide is because she believes she's been saved. This then opens the door the others in the debate slamming Hitchens for "atheistic extremism"... that old chestnut. Unfortunately, most of the audience probably then agrees with them, so debate lost in some sense for Hitchens.

"She says that she's been saved in some tabernacle in Wasilla....how does she know she's been saved?...how does she know that?"

You know, I really enjoy Hitchens most of the times but sometimes he says things that loses the majority of the audience. Most people in the US are religious and being "saved" is an integral part of Christianity. So him criticizing that in itself really just pushes most people away. Criticize her on her anti-scientific views, her wanting faith brought into schools, and all the other idiotic ideas/views she holds, but you cannot simply slam someone for just having faith/being religious (especially in the US).

I agree in principle with his views, how does anyone know he/she is saved? Because your holy book says so? I just think there are MUCH more effective ways to take her apart.

>> ^doogle:
So...
Where was she really?
The suspense is killing me.


She was in Laconia, New Hampshire (thanks Huffington Post)

>> ^westy:
As obvously if sumone states something that is corect then it is corect regardelss of how well thay say it, yes you could argue that there argument would be better recived if thay used comunicated it in the most clear way possable.

id mutch rather sumone sead something that was right in a bad way than sumone who sead something wrong in a good way.

(if you dont want to read my writing because the spelling , grammer is bad then dont and move on i dont come on the sift to write emaculate english.think of it this way, when manny people go swimming for recreatoin thay dont apreach it like an olimpic event thay just do what is required to have fun when swimming ,stay afloat.)


Mr westy, apologies for my disagreeable tone on previous comments, I had my reasons. However, what is posted is posted and I will leave it there.
Your state that a good point said in a bad way is better than vice versa is taken, however I contend that a good point said in a good way is even more effective.

You also state that not all recreational swimmers treat their pastime like and olympic event and that we all agree on I would say. HOWEVER, I fear your spelling to be a deliberate attempt at breaking with convention. That in itself points not to a relaxed attutide about rules, but your very own attempt to make some form of statement. In other words, your bad spelling is very clearly a highly deliberate attempt to make some unknown point by breaking with convention, not because you are a "recreational speller"

I have noticed a few other posts here question the necessity of your "inventive" spelling and a few pleading with you to cease this apparently moot endeavour. I fear that whatever your intentions are, they are being wasted.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the purpose of this criminal spelling adverture you have embarked on, I for one would really appreciate the divulgence!

>> ^BisH0p69:
>> ^westy:
Maby its because im british that i dont find this funny .
yanky comidy to me is to obvouse to find evan slighty amusing

If you wanna take the p1ss out of US comedy, make sure you can string a sentence together without looking like a neanderthal.


Actually looking back at previous comments on your ridiculous spelling, it's as noted one of 2 cases. A) You actually spell like that, so you are a moron or B) you do it on purpose for some inexplicable reason, hence again, you are a moron. I hazard a guess that you actually can not spell, I lived in the UK long enough to know how SHOCKINGLY bad some people's grammatical skills are here. Yes rest of the world, its not all Sherlock Holmes type logic and intelligence this side of the pond......plenty of mouthbreathers around.

>> ^westy:
Maby its because im british that i dont find this funny .
yanky comidy to me is to obvouse to find evan slighty amusing


If you wanna take the p1ss out of US comedy, make sure you can string a sentence together without looking like a neanderthal.

>> ^Napalm:
>> ^dannym3141:
How can you mistake this for australian?

Because only Australians, New Zealanders and apparently South Africans can tell their accents apart?


Wooo, OK at the risk of this discussion becoming a tad pedantic, I need to clarify this misunderstanding. I think the reason that the common "white" South African accent (because there is a difference in accents between groups in SA, albeit now slowly disappearing after Apartheid) gets mistaken for Australian is because it is not widely recognised. People hear it, think, "Blimey, what's that...its not any of the British ones, not Irish, not American or Canadian....IT MUST BE AUSTRALIAN!" If you actually listen to the accents there is DEFINITELY a big distinction. American & Canadian is a lot more related to each other, same goes for Aussie and Kiwi.
The South African accent (and by extension, Zimbabwean accent) is fairly unique. It's also known by actors as the hardest accent do to correctly. Leonardo diCaprio did a fairly decent job with his in "Blood Diamond".


>> ^Payback:
Server sounds British-Indian...


The server speaks with a fairly standard black South African accent (again, just explaining that there are accent differences between South Africa's groups...I'm not a racist! )