Fair enough - Let's give it a day and then I'll dupe it myself.
Let give some extra votes to @Barseps - don't waste the promote

>> ^My_design:

I think this is a dupe off:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Walken-Dead-Spoof-Trailer
But I can't declare it.
dupeof
Tell me how much you love me Sifty.
-B

I think this is a dupe off:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Walken-Dead-Spoof-Trailer
But I can't declare it.

*dupeof
Tell me how much you love me Sifty.

-B

>> ^PlayhousePals:

I'm a master of sound with different parts of my body =oD


I replaced the short one with a longer one!! SO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!

>> ^PlayhousePals:

I'm a master of sound with different parts of my body =oD


O RLY? Show us/Prove it.

>> ^mxxcon:

Is this a real trailer or a spoof?



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981080/

Very real, and let's hope it's as clever and well-acted as Stephen Chow's, Kung Fu Hustle!
Kung Fu Hustle was the highest-grossing film in the history of Hong Kong-Until, "You Are the Apple of My Eye" in December 31, 2011 ~ WIKI

Is this a real trailer or a spoof?

That's a really high qualify production for a TV spoof.

@shinyblurry


My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing.

I can provide evidence for any claim I make, if you ask for it. Find the body of Jesus? Don't be ridiculous. How could we? And if someone found the body of Jesus, you'd use bogus science to claim we hadn't proven it to be his, just like you still use bogus science to claim the universe is less than 10,000 years old or that macroevolution is a myth. I routinely claim the Bible is falsifiable on its face, but every time someone falsifies it, you change the meaning of the words, claim it's a metaphor, or do some other dodge, like how you handled the discrepancy between an omniscient God and a God who is surprised to discover that Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit.

OK. Here's the most clear-cut contradiction I’ve come across in the Bible. The topic seems so petty it's almost embarrassing to use it, but compare Matthew 1:8-9 with 1Chronicles 3:10-13. They give incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham.

Agreed, this sounds like some college kid's English 101 homework, where the assignment is to provide an outline for a bad Stephen King spoof.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Is this kind of ill-informed, masturbatory apocalypse fantasy unique to America? Or are there people like this in other countries?

He must've edited it after the misunderstanding.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
He did say in the description...
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You could have said so in the descriptions. I DID watch both videos and I didn't notice the difference.

In reply to this comment by seltar:
Double check next time, will ya? This was the original source, while the other one was a spoof ad.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You duped yourself? WTH? *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

Sweet! I copied the embed code from that, and it seems to work!!
Thank you so much for your help!

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Is this the original video?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/silk-soy-milks-disgusting-ad-updated


In reply to this comment by seltar:
That is absolutely correct :

#2 was a spoofed ad with the Silk logo, sapia coloring, timeshift, different music, and some text.
#1 is the original source used for the spoof video.

#2 was dead at the time, so they just assumed, based on the thumbnail or not seeing the other video.

Thank you so much for your help! :

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
So, this video should be restored because it's correct:
#1 - http://videosift.com/video/Milk-in-her-face?noredirect

And this video should be *dead because the actual embed is unavailable and it was incorrectly given the above video's embed:
#2 - http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

Is all that correct? Let me know and if so, I'll undo the dupeof on #1 and I'll make dead #2.

Also, was #2 very obviously a different video than #1? In other words, was it an egregious and obvious error that those two members falsely agreed it was a dupe? Or was #2 just dead at the time, so they were just guessing it was a dupe?


In reply to this comment by seltar:
This might be the wrong place to ask this, but how can I undupe a video?

http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

That link was to a spoof ad, whilst the version that was wrongly duped was the original source.
The original source was all I could find after the spoof ad died, and it was quite different to the spoof ad - different music and no text, overlays, logos or branding.
So I decided to sift it separately, hoping that one day the spoof ad would resurface.

Is this something that should be handled in a Sift talk, or what?

Thanks for you input.

That is absolutely correct

#2 was a spoofed ad with the Silk logo, sapia coloring, timeshift, different music, and some text.
#1 is the original source used for the spoof video.

#2 was dead at the time, so they just assumed, based on the thumbnail or not seeing the other video.

Thank you so much for your help!

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
So, this video should be restored because it's correct:
#1 - http://videosift.com/video/Milk-in-her-face?noredirect

And this video should be *dead because the actual embed is unavailable and it was incorrectly given the above video's embed:
#2 - http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

Is all that correct? Let me know and if so, I'll undo the dupeof on #1 and I'll make dead #2.

Also, was #2 very obviously a different video than #1? In other words, was it an egregious and obvious error that those two members falsely agreed it was a dupe? Or was #2 just dead at the time, so they were just guessing it was a dupe?


In reply to this comment by seltar:
This might be the wrong place to ask this, but how can I undupe a video?

http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

That link was to a spoof ad, whilst the version that was wrongly duped was the original source.
The original source was all I could find after the spoof ad died, and it was quite different to the spoof ad - different music and no text, overlays, logos or branding.
So I decided to sift it separately, hoping that one day the spoof ad would resurface.

Is this something that should be handled in a Sift talk, or what?

Thanks for you input.

This might be the wrong place to ask this, but how can I undupe a video?

http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

That link was to a spoof ad, whilst the version that was wrongly duped was the original source.
The original source was all I could find after the spoof ad died, and it was quite different to the spoof ad - different music and no text, overlays, logos or branding.
So I decided to sift it separately, hoping that one day the spoof ad would resurface.

Is this something that should be handled in a Sift talk, or what?

Thanks for you input.

Double check next time, will ya? This was the original source, while the other one was a spoof ad.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You duped yourself? WTH? *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Strangely-erotic-milk-ad

@Fusionaut

I left this dead for a reason. The reason was that it was a completely different video.
The video I sifted here - which died - was a spoof ad for Silk milk.
The version you wrongly duped is the original source.

Now, how can I restore the other video, as I want to keep this for the spoof ad - if it ever appears again?

>> ^Fusionaut:

notdead