I'm inclined to agree, however I found it enjoyable enough. It's certainly more effort than I've seen with most people trying to put together a dr demento song video! Even if the timings off.

I -loved- the butterfly clip, though. I want those wings.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
I don't care for all the literal imagery. The song contains "butterfly"
so we see a butterfly. The song contains "sailing" so we see a boat.
See, this is what I was talking about with this
comment. The craft of making videos is suffering under the sheer number of
videos available. No one's taking the time to keep art alive

Anyway, rant over.

I remember this one from Dr. Demento too. T-Bone came out with EB II some months later...I have it on tape somewhere.

Looks like it's over already, with yours being kept.

And no harm no foul, especially when you were right about posting first.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Where is this discussion taking place? I checked SiftTalk. I is lost.

And sorry if I came across like a douche nozzle.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
You're right about the timestamps, but I'm virtually certain that video was posted last night. I'm noticing that the age of the promote matches the vid's current queue time.

I did a * discuss on it. Let's get an official ruling on it.

You're right though, I could easily be wrong about it.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
So between a submission 13 hours old (mine) and a submission 2 hours old (phelixian's), mine is the duplicate? Yeah, ok. Way to go!

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Dupe: http://politics.videosift.com/video/Obama-on-OReilly

You're right about the timestamps, but I'm virtually certain that video was posted last night. I'm noticing that the age of the promote matches the vid's current queue time.

I did a * discuss on it. Let's get an official ruling on it.

You're right though, I could easily be wrong about it.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
So between a submission 13 hours old (mine) and a submission 2 hours old (phelixian's), mine is the duplicate? Yeah, ok. Way to go!

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Dupe: http://politics.videosift.com/video/Obama-on-OReilly

good catch, thanks.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
DFT, you may be thinking of A Simple Plan (with Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton), which this appears to be a parody of, not Blood Simple.

comment of the month.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
How far into his chest cavity do you think his testicles retreated?

I was a bit defensive for the underdog here because I am a former Christian. I suppose I would call myself agnostic now. Thanks for the polite and sincere replies.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
>> ^swampgirl:
The "Atheists' Experience"? oh please.
Atheism shouldn't be an "experience" at all, but the absence of "Experiences" I thought. You live, you observe, you learn, you appreciate, you age, you die... the end.

We have all the same experiences as reverent people. We live, we observe, we feel awe, we love, we have children. We just don't attribute any of it to an entity in which we do not believe.

A show?? ... for atheists? Guys like these are as annoying as right wing fundies. Why do they feel the need to evangelize? Cause that's what this looks like to me.
Here are some guys that feel the need to make atheism into some form of lifestyle that needs promotion.... a belief system. The way they are promoting this absence of belief that brings purpose and meaning in their lives....how is this different from what religion is doing for others? ... practically speaking here...

You can call it a belief system if you like, but that's not what it is. Atheists do not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Period. Is this show different than religion prosthelatizing (sp)? Probably not.

That they care so much to go to these lengths to debunk Christianity says there's some baggage in their pasts

Atheists only feel the need to debunk Christianity when a Christian quotes the bible at us. And then it's pretty easy debunking because the bible is not well thought out (IMO). However, by-and-large, we don't go around shoving our views in your face. If you do not wish to hear such things, don't watch the show. For example, I've never seen the 700 Club. Not once.

bitter about something? Why the chip on the shoulder? Why showcase some poor fella that may not be bright, but is sincere?

They cannot control who calls in. And yes, the delight the hosts take in showing this guy up is a little over the top. That wouldn't necessarily be my style. But then, not all reverent people are exactly the same as each other.

You aren't providing a service other than showcasing your over educated, over privileged and yes at times... arrogance.

Well, I think they're providing a great service and will likely continue to do so. They're currently on their 550th show, or there-abouts? Not a bad run.

Enjoy your lack of belief fellas. Celebrate that intellect of yours. BUT Let the other people have their beliefs while you use those big smart brains of yours on something more productive.

I'd be glad to close my mouth forever so long as my country (USA) does not go too far: sanctioning prayer in school, creationism in science, and...oh yeah...war in the name of god. Stopping such activity is fairly important to us.

Guys, let it go. Go cure cancer, write music, invent the flux capacitor... just enjoy your life before its over.

We will.

I'm so gonna get flamed now aren't I?

I don't flame. I'm too old for that shit. But overall, I feel I'm being pretty civil.

Atheists get angry when atheism is categorized as a religion. Understandable. You do see why don't you?

Yes, which is why we don't see it as a religion.

IMO the reason is because so many atheists feel the need to organize and promote it as a belief system.

No, we don't.

So much seeking of validation..needing it.... is NOT believing in anything enough?

Don't confuse atheism with nihilism. The reverent's favorite claim is that "atheists believe in nothing." Uhh, no. We believe in all the things you believe in: just not god. We do not feel we need religion to be moral people.

What a sad world it would be if the ONLY reason people didn't go around killing each other and stealing is out of a fear of god. We're already good. We don't need a book for that.

Why all this attention seeking behavior and needing to be 'right' about it?

That's a good question. Probably because we feel threatened. See above for the thing about prayer, creationism in science, and holy wars.

Their behavior follows a similar pattern of those in organized religions.

I'll agree with you there. It is similar. We're OK with that.

That'd be a long set, doubt it. Have you seen the Mr Ed mashup on youtube? Wacky stuff!

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Is there a vid of the boys doing all 5 Stallion songs back to back? In all the Ween shows I've been to, I've never seen it.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
How could a Sagan fan not be aware of the Cosmos series? It's like a Darwin fan not ever hearing of the Theory of Evolution. Or something like that.

I acquired the 7-disc set myself recently because we watched it originally in my 7th grade science class. I don't remember how things were, politically, back then (aside from the Iran hostages thing), but in re-watching the Cosmos DVDs, Carl Sagan seems very despondent and fearful about the future of man. More than once, he goes on about the likelihood of self-destruction. Only in the added material, shot in 1990, does he seem "happier."

Anyone else notice this? Was Carl Sagan depressed?


I had the same impression on a couple occasions. In my opinion, he isn't really depressed, but realistic.

He seems to look at all these things from a scientific point of view. I am sure that when one looks at data for a while, things would look bleak. Population has only been rising, and problems become bigger with time.

Read his book "Billions and Billions" if you have a chance, it may help you understand his point of view better.

Thanks for the advice, I'll make sure to check Mumford out in the near future. And it's certainly nice to see people talking (and knowing) about not-so-blockbustery films from the 90s.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
You should see McDonnell in "Mumford" for a different sort of role. I loved her in Grand Canyon, although that one's more of the typecasting you're talking about, a little. Still, she's got a commanding screen presence to be sure.