RETARD!

^better discussions on other sites, actually.

FUCK WHY AM I STILL LOGGED IN?
I TRIED TO FUCK THIS SHIT UP BUT NOW I AM DRUNK AND LOGGED IN

DAG FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU PROMISED ME I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LOG IN.

how the fuck am i still logged in on my girlfriend's computer?

sweet.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Banning is punitive, instead - here's a method for deactivating your own account permanently:

1. In the login section of your profile, change your email address to something nonsensical
2. type some nonsense into notepad or anything else that will accept text
3. Paste the gibberish into the password and confirm fields of the login section of your profile
4. Logout

Sorry we don't have an easier one button approach for this. We will put this on the list of potential features to add for 4.0

Cheers





In reply to this comment by MINK:
i am not threatening you with destruction, i'll just post a self link or something. i was trying to leave quietly, without "theatrics" like a deliberate self link or a "fuck you" thread... i thought it would be quieter if i ask you to ban me.

the reason i want to be banned is because if i "just leave" then i can still come back, and i don't want to, because that will just piss you off, which i don't want to do. I have "quit" twice already and it didn't work. You're a sucker for trollbait, i'm a sucker for retards. if you ban me then both our lives will improve.

So, seeing as you don't offer an account cancellation and self blocking feature, i am asking you to do it by hand, to do us all a favour. it's win win.




In reply to this comment by dag:
I will not ban you and please don't threaten me with doing harm to the community.

If you're unhappy with the Sift and you feel that you've exhausted all your efforts to engage the community. Just. fucking. leave. No need to break the furniture for a dramatic exit.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
dude just ban me, or i will force you to ban me. let's do this the easy way, eh?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Please don't go on a flameout downvote spree - but if you feel the need - may I suggest taking a breather from the Sift.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

in summary: "LALALALALALALALALALAL WE ARE NOT LISTENING"

have fun in the "Sift is bankrupt" thread.

i am not threatening you with destruction, i'll just post a self link or something. i was trying to leave quietly, without "theatrics" like a deliberate self link or a "fuck you" thread... i thought it would be quieter if i ask you to ban me.

the reason i want to be banned is because if i "just leave" then i can still come back, and i don't want to, because that will just piss you off, which i don't want to do. I have "quit" twice already and it didn't work. You're a sucker for trollbait, i'm a sucker for retards. if you ban me then both our lives will improve.

So, seeing as you don't offer an account cancellation and self blocking feature, i am asking you to do it by hand, to do us all a favour. it's win win.




In reply to this comment by dag:
I will not ban you and please don't threaten me with doing harm to the community.

If you're unhappy with the Sift and you feel that you've exhausted all your efforts to engage the community. Just. fucking. leave. No need to break the furniture for a dramatic exit.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
dude just ban me, or i will force you to ban me. let's do this the easy way, eh?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Please don't go on a flameout downvote spree - but if you feel the need - may I suggest taking a breather from the Sift.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

dude just ban me, or i will force you to ban me. let's do this the easy way, eh?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Please don't go on a flameout downvote spree - but if you feel the need - may I suggest taking a breather from the Sift.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

hey bt, dude, the sift can't support itself financially and that's not my fault. i have suggested solutions with other members. we have waited. i have suggested louder because nothing happened to fix the situation and the donations dried up.

i fully support videosift trying to become self reliant. that would be cool. it's just that i don't think we can get there by ignoring facts and asking people to leave.

simpler site = cheaper, and would work better. it's win win. i don't see what the problem is.

>> ^rougy:
"Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook." (Wikipedia)
Economics is nothing if it is not political and cultural.
A person can make a science out of studying the way a Monopoly game is played, but almost every "discovery" made in that research will apply exclusively to the game of Monopoly.
It will not transfer to the Game of Life, or Sorry, or draw poker.
In the real world we have labor, capital, and a problem to solve or an objective to reach.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are merely varying methods of using labor and capital to solve those problems or reach those objectives.
The "science" that you are purporting to share here is merely a study of one of those methods, capitalism, and an explanation of the peculiarities inherent in its rulebook.
For the sake of our world and humanity, it's time we found and established a new set of rules.


quoted because it's awesome. economics ≠ science

if a user spent as much time as jonny has, thinking about and writing about an idea that you AGREED with, you'd implement it tomorrow.

WTF? ignoring jonny and insulting me? WTF.

I accused you of brushing off criticism and ignoring suggestions, and what do you do? you come in the thread and say nothing except ignore suggestions, brushing off criticism and turning it against the critic.

Thanks for your input into our brainstorming dag.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^ Oh wow, what happened to the new Mink? Do I need to take back the acceptance of your apology now?

Well, I certainly apologise for not not contributing more in this thread - as you might understand, Lucky and I have been a bit busy with other issues on the Sift of late - in addition to the fact that we are both working full-time jobs outside the Sift. So sorry we're not living up to your expectations as usual Mink.

dag i never said i would stop criticising. and all my criticism since the crash has been calm and logical and truthful. but you ALWAYS respond when i damage your pride, and then you don't respond to the suggestions you just criticise my personality.

This wasn't even my suggestion, it was jonny's, so what's your excuse for ignoring him while you type out another snide attack on the MINK?

Think about that.

>> ^dag:
Please see my comment here. Thank you.



What? zero information there dag. "you're working on it"?

I was thinking more about, you know, a vote on whether we should kill the sidebar to save some freaking money, how much money would that save, how much do we need, etc etc. None of us can help because we don't know the problem or the scale of the problem.

Saying "keep donating, we promise we are figuring something out" is a really lame way to inspire donations. As you can see, from the number of donations you are getting... lame.

Personally I am not gonna give you even $10 to burn on bullshit you can't justify in public. If i thought it was worth it and would be spent sensibly, i would go charter. but how can i know that it's worth it?

you are basically saying "trust us we welcome your ideas" on one hand, and brushing off suggestions and questions with the other hand, while losing data without a backup.

this just gets stupider and stupider.

give up jonny, these suggestions are only ever implemented if dag and lucky were already thinking about doing them.

at this point, any simplification is an admission of failure and they don't seem ready for that. they don't even engage in the discussion. i was waiting for them to prove me wrong but they didn't.

like i said, i was suggesting queue expiration by viewcount in like 1994 or something. They just say a couple of vague criticisms and go off somewhere else.

Meanwhile, i noticed not a lot of people are donating to the site since the crash, and we still have intense dynamic pages burning server power.