"Can I wear this condom?"
-"Not instead of pants!"

Tee-hee..

This has been on here before....will search a bit and see if I can locate.

>> ^Porksandwich:

This has been on here before....will search a bit and see if I can locate.


Well that's one way to assure fewer upvotes...

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^Porksandwich:
This has been on here before....will search a bit and see if I can locate.

Well that's one way to assure fewer upvotes...


Shrug, I can't locate it. It's been on here before because I don't see College Humor videos anywhere but here on the sites I browse. Thought the point of this site was to show videos you might not see otherwise and cut back on reposts.

"i think i saw this once, so it's wrong for you to post it"?

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Porksandwich:
This has been on here before....will search a bit and see if I can locate.

Well that's one way to assure fewer upvotes...

Shrug, I can't locate it. It's been on here before because I don't see College Humor videos anywhere but here on the sites I browse. Thought the point of this site was to show videos you might not see otherwise and cut back on reposts.


That's true, and if it is a dupe then by all means please point that out.

The problem is that calling it a dupe without any confirmation makes some people less likely to vote for the video even if it isn't really a duplicate post. I haven't seen this one before, so if the old one is gone for some reason then I'm glad this one was posted.

Call dupe if it's true, but please confirm that the old version still exists before posting about it.

Have to confess I am not entirely sure how this website functions, unless someone else agrees with me that this video has ran it's course here before. I think it even hit top 15 then as well. Then what's stopping people from removing the video from the site, waiting for it to be purged and re-submitting said video for another vote up to the top 15?

A very similar Sift with the same (or nearly same) people in it was on here a few weeks ago, but unless there was another one...

UPVOTED ANYWAY

>> ^Porksandwich:

Have to confess I am not entirely sure how this website functions, unless someone else agrees with me that this video has ran it's course here before. I think it even hit top 15 then as well. Then what's stopping people from removing the video from the site, waiting for it to be purged and re-submitting said video for another vote up to the top 15?


If it was removed by the original poster they would 'lose' the votes that it collected, which are attributed to them, so there's no incentive to the original poster to do so, as their sift-rank is linked to the number of votes they posted have.

And if someone posted this earlier, we can link this to that one auto-magically anyway. I haven't been around for a while, but I haven't seen it and I've gladly upvoted.

This clip was hilarious.

>> ^Psychologic:
The problem is that calling it a dupe without any confirmation makes some people less likely to vote for the video even if it isn't really a duplicate post.

I have a hard time believing that. There are no downsides to voting for a dupe, why would people not vote?

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

Yes, I do think there would be very little causing people not to vote for dupe. If it's eventually found to be a dupe - the votes are transferred, so no harm done. >> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Psychologic:
The problem is that calling it a dupe without any confirmation makes some people less likely to vote for the video even if it isn't really a duplicate post.
I have a hard time believing that. There are no downsides to voting for a dupe, why would people not vote?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'class, note, jeggins, tacket, yama bra, not a shirt, thongs, boobs' to 'class, note, jeggins, tacket, yama bra, nirt, not a shirt, thongs, boobs, bewbs, earned' - edited by calvados

at 1:43 you can clearly see her W-neck un-blurred, which reveals a disturbing lack of blur-worthy material (bewbs).

>> ^dag:

Yes, I do think there would be very little causing people not to vote for dupe. If it's eventually found to be a dupe - the votes are transferred, so no harm done. >> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Psychologic:
The problem is that calling it a dupe without any confirmation makes some people less likely to vote for the video even if it isn't really a duplicate post.
I have a hard time believing that. There are no downsides to voting for a dupe, why would people not vote?



People who know the system, sure. Newer members might just decide to skip it.

I didn't take a poll so I can't say it has a huge (or any real) effect on voting... I'm just basing it on my initial reaction to seeing it.

It also isn't a knock on any individual. I've had the urge to say "I think this has been posted before" on a video, but felt it would be kinda lazy of me to make such an assertion without at least confirming it first.


Anyway, liked the video. Upvote for tops made of tubes. "Wtf?"

Thumbnail got me.

Is there a non censored version?

nm... i'll just click some porn....

fap fap

@Lann to the rescue.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Actually it's @Lann the unintentional destroyer.

Heh, well the "dupe" video that was destroyed was not a dupe. And this video IS a dupe just whoever originally posted it here back in Feb/Mar must have removed it and there's no trace of it now.

Yeah, I don't understand this system at all.

@Porksandwich that one shouldn't have been duped. @ant and @Lann dun goofed.

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Porksandwich" title="member since February 19th, 2010" class="profilelink">Porksandwich that one shouldn't have been duped. @ant and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lann" title="member since May 11th, 2009" class="profilelink">Lann dun goofed.


Yeah, sorry about that guys. Even thumbnails looked the same to me. Seriously, we need an undo/^z for this dupe.

>> ^ant:

Yeah, sorry about that guys. Even thumbnails looked the same to me. Seriously, we need an undo/^z for this dupe.


Or I dunno .. maybe watch the video first before throwing down the first dupeof?

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^ant:
Yeah, sorry about that guys. Even thumbnails looked the same to me. Seriously, we need an undo/^z for this dupe.

Or I dunno .. maybe watch the video first before throwing down the first dupeof?


I don't want to have wait to buffer on my slow Internet connection.

>> ^ant:

>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^ant:
Yeah, sorry about that guys. Even thumbnails looked the same to me. Seriously, we need an undo/^z for this dupe.

Or I dunno .. maybe watch the video first before throwing down the first dupeof?

I don't want to have wait to buffer on my slow Internet connection.


Uh, yeah, it's really not a good idea to call a dupe if you're not watching the video in question. If you don't want to wait for the buffer, let someone else do it (especially since the so-called dupe in question had a different title, and one that implied it was a sequel to the first).

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^ant:
>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^ant:
Yeah, sorry about that guys. Even thumbnails looked the same to me. Seriously, we need an undo/^z for this dupe.

Or I dunno .. maybe watch the video first before throwing down the first dupeof?

I don't want to have wait to buffer on my slow Internet connection.

Uh, yeah, it's really not a good idea to call a dupe if you're not watching the video in question. If you don't want to wait for the buffer, let someone else do it (especially since the so-called dupe in question had a different title, and one that implied it was a sequel to the first).


I did watch the first few seconds but those were the same with the rowdy teenagers/teens and substitute coming in. Then, I stopped and called a dupe.

>> ^mizila:

at 1:43 you can clearly see her W-neck un-blurred, which reveals a disturbing lack of blur-worthy material (bewbs).

yes, major disappointment
i was hoping for xrated unblurred version but it's all fake