>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
>> ^Yogi:
I don't care.

I think that response is revealing. A pity, I'm just trying to converse rationally with you but clearly that isn't possible.

Because you're lying...you went straight from a threat to trying to be diplomatic? Nope sorry, we're done, I don't care anymore if you live or die.


There need to be boundaries to define what is acceptable and what is not. I've merely explained that strictly speaking you're breaking the rules and basically behaving like a dick.

And clearly diplomacy has never crossed your mind. Thanks for your kind words.

Hiding your bullying behind religious justifications makes it worse, not better. Leave me alone.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I hear that you don't believe in God. I understand that, I used to be agnostic. It probably seems silly, frustating and even hurtful to tell you about sin. What I know is that God is real, and the bible is true. What I know is that you don't have to believe in sin to be a sinner, and you don't have to believe in God to be held accountable to Him. What I know is that you are hurting yourself spiritually, and that sin is slavery to the devil. So, regardless of whether you believe me or not, I am compelled on a moral level, and a heart level to tell you that there is a God and that unless you stop breaking His rules and get right with Him, you are facing eternal consequences. I'm sorry if you don't like that, and I am not trying to be hateful, I am just telling you the truth. God will judge the world and we will all stand before Him. You need to be born again and get right with God. God bless.

I hear that you don't believe in God. I understand that, I used to be agnostic. It probably seems silly, frustating and even hurtful to tell you about sin. What I know is that God is real, and the bible is true. What I know is that you don't have to believe in sin to be a sinner, and you don't have to believe in God to be held accountable to Him. What I know is that you are hurting yourself spiritually, and that sin is slavery to the devil. So, regardless of whether you believe me or not, I am compelled on a moral level, and a heart level to tell you that there is a God and that unless you stop breaking His rules and get right with Him, you are facing eternal consequences. I'm sorry if you don't like that, and I am not trying to be hateful, I am just telling you the truth. God will judge the world and we will all stand before Him. You need to be born again and get right with God. God bless.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I've had it. Look. Sin doesn't exist - because there is no god. I'm not rebelling against your god because there is no god to rebel against. I do not say that your god is wrong, I say there is no god to be wrong. I'm gay and unreptentant because there is nobody who demands repentance of me - nobody I value the opinion of anyway, and there are no consequences for non-repentance because there is no god sitting in judgement. Anyone who believes there is a god is wasting their time - we only have one life, and it's happening now. Stop trying to convert me to your stupid lying religion and leave me alone to love and live as I choose. I'm not hurting anyone, not even myself.
Even if you disagree with me, bear in mind that I'm not interested in joining your superstitious web of immoral fiction so do not reply with attempts to convert me. Do not consider me lost, I am anything but.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Homosexuality is a sin and you need to repent. Whatever you might think, God is the judge and He has commanded everyone to repent of their sins. Anyone who dies in their sin without salvation will spend eternity in hell, and I don't want that to happen to you, so please do not go on in your rebellion against Gods authority. This wicked society is changing to accomodate this sin, and it is emboldening people to believe that they are right and God is wrong, but regardless of what men say you are the one who will give account to God.
Please do not let flawed Christians (we're all flawed) sway your opinion of what is right and wrong, because Satan uses hypocrites to embolden sinners. Don't fall into the trap, but escape with your soul and seek Gods forgiveness. This life is only temporary and what you do here has eternal consequences. Jesus loves you so please seek His forgiveness.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair

I get that in your case spanking didn't work. I think it was somewhat effective in my case. There were times with I hesitated breaking the rules because I thought more about the punishment than any principles.

I don't count a comedian as an authority on something so serious, but would love to see some scientific study on the effectiveness of spanking.

The problem here is, what is an objective definition of abuse? To you, he crossed the line. To others, you may cross the line. To some any spanking at all would constitute abuse. @carneval and @bareboards2, when you "spank" or give "3 whacks" to your child, do you want some "crusader" peeking through your window and calling Child Protective Services?

All I have to see is the video, but from the words said in the video, it sounds like the girl blatently disobeyed a firm rule and it wasn't the first time. Break a rule, get a whuppin'. Simple. The line for abuse to me would be bruises and broken bones, punches and kicks. Fear of the pain and some belt welps don't cut it.

The fact that he cussed and punished in anger: meh. How many parents ground their child in anger, or use some cuss words in front of them in anger? You guys would have half the nation under 16 in foster care.

Errr... where in this video does it say these 29 items are rules? It seems to me that the author is merely trying to come up with a list of suggestions, it's you who are trying to follow them as rules.

>> ^jmzero:

You can't get creative by following rules set by others.

21 was "Break the Rules". Thanks, now I know that I can't have success by following the rule "break the rule". Guess I'll have to break the rule!
Either you do it your way or you don't do it at all.

And there it is - that's the first rule I'm going to break. I'm going to do it your way instead of mine. Time to stop following rules set by others! Except yours. But I'm following them transgressively so it's OK.

>> ^jmzero:
You can't get creative by following rules set by others.
21 was "Break the Rules". Thanks, now I know that I can't have success by following the rule "break the rule". Guess I'll have to break the rule!
Either you do it your way or you don't do it at all.
And there it is - that's the first rule I'm going to break. I'm going to do it your way instead of mine. Time to stop following rules set by others! Except yours. But I'm following them transgressively so it's OK.


Well said, and well thought out... I think...

You can't get creative by following rules set by others.


21 was "Break the Rules". Thanks, now I know that I can't have success by following the rule "break the rule". Guess I'll have to break the rule!

Either you do it your way or you don't do it at all.


And there it is - that's the first rule I'm going to break. I'm going to do it your way instead of mine. Time to stop following rules set by others! Except yours. But I'm following them transgressively so it's OK.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@shinyblurry
Thank you sooo much for taking over the whole thread--again.
This behavior is the reason I think you should be banned.
Anyone dares to post anything you disagree with will have their thread hijacked.
Take it to the profile pages for those who want to argue with a zealot.
<div id="widget_865170862"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=205715&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script></div>


It takes more than one person to have a proper conversation.

as well this is not your baby, you post a video and its let loose into the wild and anyone can say whatever as long as it is not "breaking the rules"

I like turtles

I had a plain old cheese sandwich for dinner.

You ignore me extremely well, do it to him as well.

oh and

" chill out "

Well, after watching such a great play get sunk, you can be damn sure nobody else is going to blow it by breaking this rule... College football has always been a bit stricter about showboating, though, hasn't it?

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

She didn't push him off the catwalk though. But I think her time will come...


That's basically why I didn't like this scene. Should've just let her do that if you wanted to break rules and shit. This is one of my problems with Game of Thrones...it'll break some rules but not the ones I want, which makes it as bad as Jersey Shore.

@lucky
No. They are actually called guidelines for the same reason my job has "guidelines," instead of "rules."

Guidelines can be broad and shapeable at whim; that way it's a catch 22. Those who question guidelines can be told, "Sir/ma'am, the guidelines are not set in stone but reflective of a broader policy." And, for those who break the rules, erm, I mean guidelines, you can tell them, "See, you didn't follow the guidelines so now we move on to B."

Trust me, it's a confusing matter that’s left intentionally confusing. But when in doubt, if the rules/guidelines have a consequence, then they are rules. If they are guidelines, then they don't have a measurable consequence.

Dictionary.Reference.com for "Guidelines" notes nothing about punishment or potential punishment.
1. any guide or indication of a future course of action: guidelines on the government's future policy.
2. a lightly marked line used as a guide, as in composing a drawing, a typed page, or a line of lettering.
3. a rope or cord that serves to guide one's steps, especially over rocky terrain, through underground passages, etc.

The transcription is from a different message. Here's the right one:

Greetings, members of NATO. We are Anonymous.

In a recent publication, you have singled out Anonymous as a threat to „government and the people“. You have also alleged that secrecy is a ‘necessary evil’ and that transparency is npt always the right way forward.

Anonymous would like to remind you that the government and the people are, contrary to the supposed foundations of „democracy“, distinct entities with often conflicting goals and desires. It is Anonymous’ position that when there is a conflict of interest between the government and the people, it is the people’s will which must take priority. The only threat transparency poses to government is to threaten government’s ability to act in a manner which the people would disagree with, without having to face democratic consequences and accountability for such behaviour. Your own report cites a perfect example of this, the Anonymous attack on HBGary. Whether HBGary were acting in the cause of security or military gain is irrelevant – their actions were illegal and morally reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and/or the military has the right to be above the law and to use the phoney cliche of „national security“ to justify illegal and deceptive activities. If the government must break the rules, they must also be willing to accept the democratic consequences of this at the ballot box.We do not accept the current status quo whereby a government can tell one story to the people and another in private. Dishonesty and secrecy totally undermine the concept of self rule. How can the people judge for whom to vote unless they are fully aware of what policies said politicians are actually pursuing?

When a government is elected, it is said to „represent“ the nation it governs. This essentially means that the actions of a government are not the actions of the people in government, but are actions taken on behalf of every citizen in that country. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which the people are, in many cases, totally and utterly unaware of what is being said and done on their behalf – behind closed doors.

Anonymous and WikiLeaks are distinct entities. The actions of Anonymous were not aided or even requested by WikiLeaks. However, Anonymous and WikiLeaks do share one common attribute: They are no threat to any organization – unless that organization is doing something wrong and attempting to get away with it.

We do not wish to threaten anybody’s way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people – who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.
The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing „embarassing“ about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous’ or Wikileaks’ revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to „how we can avoid a similar leak in the future“. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won’t have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won’t have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won’t have to worry about getting in trouble for it.

Do not attempt to repair your two faces by concealing one of them. Instead, try having only one face – an honest, open and democratic one.

You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy. Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great progress – perhaps what you truly fear in us, is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, are now surplus to requirements.

Finally, do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your trampling of dissent.

Your only chance of defeating the movement which binds all of us is to accept it. This is no longer your world. It is our world – the people’s world.

We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

>> ^Stormsinger:

After spending a decade and a half deeply involved in online communities, both as a member and as staff, I feel compelled to point out that explicit standards of conduct aren't really much help. The vast majority of people already understand what's "over the line", and making an explicit list of "forbidden" words and actions works mostly as fodder for the rules lawyers ("I didn't say fag, I said fhag, so you can't ban me!"). And people who cross the lines of common decency are -still- going to claim that they're only in trouble because the powers that be don't like them.

I'm personally fine with guidelines just as we already have...they're clear enough that anyone who cares can understand. However, I'm not a fan of the semi-anonymous, pseudo-automated "X votes means a ban" style of systems. I prefer to rely on the judgement of a known person or small group of persons.

I'm definitely not suggesting we try to come up with some list of "bad words." I think our issue is hostility, not obscenity.

I'm just saying we need to be a little more clear than "personal attacks," especially when personal attacks get tossed around all the time. People saying "it's persecution" have a legitimate case -- they've been singled out and punished for breaking a rule that everyone breaks.

I think if we're getting people into the "I didn't say fag, I said fhag" mode at least some of the time, it'd be an improvement over the near universal "it's persecution!" response we've seen when people get reprimanded for bad behavior. If our community's argument over bans centered on the circumstances of the incident and interpretation of the rules, then I think we could deduce that the community's reached some sort of consensus that the rules are legitimate, and there's a need to mete out punishments if they're broken.

The arguments I've actually seen here tend to revolve around some sort of argument about dag's worthiness as our king. I don't think that's a healthy place for us to be.

Kinda...but not completely =P. Some people like blankfist are cynical in their style, but I'm not sure that this cynicism was the motivation for starting this thread. I was more attempting to introduce the idea that bareboards may be interpreting any long and engaged discussion as a huge troll session...whereas maybe it's really just a long and involved discussion.

>> ^marinara:

yeah well said draak13.
I take your point, bareboards, that "you don't like the trolling here on the sift"
the problem is, that blankfist is a good troll. He's not going to break the rules here, he's just going to needle you (with sarcasm and pigheadedness) until you lose your temper.
I don't see a solution here.
The people that you want to see muzzled are completely unlikely to do so voluntarily.
another website would just hire a moderator who would just start deleting sexist comments. Just the thing i don't like.