He's angry, I googled this I couldn't find anything? Except for his homepage, is he like a professional ranter? Either way good Rant!

http://www.jamesinman.com/

And here is more about the man he was ranting about-

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=6943

I would love to be the court reporter transcribing this fine piece of civil disobedient public comedy.

Dupe?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Seattle-man-reads-an-open-letter-to-the-cop-who-arrested-him

I think the other video should be considered the dupe, even if it was technically submitted first.

I think you're right

I think you're wrong.

I had to discard it because none of you knuckleheads voted for it the first time.

It was covered here before and the consensus seemed to be that a discarded vid is fair game for other sifters
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Discarded-videos-in-Queue
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Draft-Posting-Rules
http://mlx.videosift.com/talk/Dupe-Discards


though I think it remains sort of a weird area. Since theo's was discarded, it didn't show up on my search or the possible duplicates screen (or else I would have just saved it myself) so up it went again.

A Downvote? Motherforgetter.


I am not inclined to discard this one because it is now technically first in time, has been added to a collective, and it is just the nature of sift that a discard six months ago may be someone else's top 15 video today.

I completely agree with mlx's suggestion that would show duplicate discards upon submission.

This is were *merge would work.

Anyways, let's say it was a dead video, and it was fixed with a newer url... then it goes to the older video. So just cause his was discarded then saved.. that doesn't count?

Anyways, WHICH ONE made it out of the queue first???? From where I sit, this (a) has less votes, (b) made it out of the queue LAST. This is the dupe in my mind

James Inman rants TWICE on the front page! So popular.

yeah, the queue race adds another layer of complexity to the problem. Added to the fact that theo downvoted this one which is bad form in life. a merge function would be so cool.

Once a video is discarded, it is a dead letter,the clock is reset and whoever sifts the vid next is first-in-time even if the original submitter would have preferred or even received a save.

However, I don't really want to waste phelixian's kind-hearted save nor do i want a sift full of Inmans so I plan to discard this one after a *blog for rules clarification.

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by gold star member rickegee)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I agree - this is a weird area. In the absence of a merge function (soon?) I think we do have to use the first published indicator. Sorry Rick, look on the bright side, you are providing good sift case-law precendence

I'm sure we will cite Gee V. 47 in the future

I also appreciate your graciousness in yielding to the gentleman from NeoTokyo

as long as i don't have to cite-check or brief it. UNLESS I can put on the powdered wig . . .ooooh wigginess.

at least this strange, funny bit of business finally made it to the front. I am such a sucker for city council antics.

*discard

Self-discarding this post (discard called by original submitter rickegee)