Great reply. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

>> ^oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".
In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]
Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.
Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.
Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:
What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?
Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.
Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.
So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?
What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?
Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.
Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

Great reply. Thanks.

Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

*comedy

For those that don't know, leading is the technique for shooting a moving target, wherein you aim in front of the target so that the bullet's trajectory and the target's trajectory meet after bullet travel time.

Ya shooting it in that state would be cruel.

I, on the other hand, would first release then take aim, because, as we all know, the moving target is a highly difficult shot!

>> dag:
I too felt that the consensus was 2 days. But consensus is a moving target. We can only do our best to interpret, and also add our own judgment... No matter how popular a change is perceived to be- there will always be people unhappy with the outcome.

monsieur, vous etes un homme tres colbert, l'expression de la "truthiness" vraiment frappe le nail sur la tete.

>> dag:
I too felt that the consensus was 2 days. But consensus is a moving target. We can only do our best to interpret, and also add our own judgment. There's only one certainty I've discovered in running an online community. No matter how popular a change is perceived to be- there will always be people unhappy with the outcome. We understand that- and to run this place effectively it's our job to listen and try and decide if the complaint warrants redress. We're listening- but our current configuration is around 12 hours old, so excuse us if we're not jumping to undo the current changes in order to address personal opinions.

Dag, I'm not asking anyone to jump and undo any changes right now. As I said in my comment before the last one, I'm willing to wait and see how the new system works over the next 2 - 4 weeks. I wish queue time had been shortened to just 3 days first, but since you set it to 2 I'm willing to ride it out for a little while. As I also said, in 2 - 4 weeks I may be a believer. So I'm not at all being close-minded. I simply think gorgonheap has a legitimate complaint, and because of this I hope that we revisit these changes in 2 - 4 weeks by polling the membership in a Sift Talk post by asking us how we all think these changes are working out. Maybe by then I'll be on board completely with you guys. In fact I'd say there's a decent chance of it. So is polling the membership down the road being unreasonable? That's all I'm asking.

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

I too felt that the consensus was 2 days. But consensus is a moving target. We can only do our best to interpret, and also add our own judgment.

There's only one certainty I've discovered in running an online community. No matter how popular a change is perceived to be- there will always be people unhappy with the outcome.

We understand that- and to run this place effectively it's our job to listen and try and decide if the complaint warrants redress. We're listening- but our current configuration is around 12 hours old, so excuse us if we're not jumping to undo the current changes in order to address personal opinions.

A: Of course you've never met anyone who thought Tae Kwon Do was made for cage fighting. I was being facetious:

You're full of horse puckey, putting it lightly. If you were being facetious, you wouldn't be getting your panties in a knot.

The reason that I said it was that scholars and practitioners generally agree that grappling with limited striking is the best form of one-on-one, unarmed combat, which people love to bring up when talking about Tae Kwon Do. And, which I tend to agree with.

What scholars and practitioners generally agree with that? Bullcrap. I have never heard anybody but non-fighters say that, nor is there a general consensus that there is any single perfect mixture of striking and grappling in MMA. Hell, most of the wins in the UFC title bouts recently have been won through striking: Gonzaga's, Serra's, GSP's, Rampage, etc.

In fact, the general consensus among MMA fighters is that there is no single best combination of striking and grappling. The mixture of grappling and striking is always dependent on the background of the fighter and calibrated to his particular technical and physical abilities. And I've never heard a good fighter with "limited striking" skills, that is unacceptable for any good fighter. A good fighter, even one who's a submission specialist, will have proficient striking skills at the very least, or he's not a good fighter.

But not all fighting takes place one-on-one, or on even, equally familiar ground. (i.e.: a cage fight) The martial arts merely train you in different ways to be prepared for given situations.

I agree that not all fighting takes place one-on-one or on even ground. I do, however, hold that MMA-style training is the single most effective form of training for any kind of unarmed combat, period. I also do not believe that any unarmed martial art will adequately enable you to actually fight multiple opponents with a greater chance of winning than losing.

B. Forms are not the only thing you need to learn to fight. I agree, but they do help impart technique and physical fitness. Otherwise, why do boxers shadowbox? Why do pilots fly training missions? Why do hunters practice shooting targets? Martial artists punch bags, break boards, spar and use all sorts of different ways to train. No combat art relies only on forms, and even modern MMA fighters don't train ONLY in the ring.

Forms are not good at imparting technique, they're a waste of time if you're trying to learn to fight. Sorry. Boxers shadowbox because it is a dynamic exercise, in which there is no set order of technique. That's why they move the same way that they do during a fight, with no pre-conceived list of things to do. Shadowboxing is not comparable to doing forms. Boxers are not just standing in horse stance or front stance and throwing chambered punches, then maybe sidestepping, because a pre-memorized complex set of motions like a traditional form will never be applicable in a fight, individual techniques must be learned in dead drilling, but they must be chained together during dynamic training. Pilots fly training missions, similiarly, because it is a dynamic exercise, that's why they don't just fly the same mission over and over again, they run many different scenarios with things changing every time.

Modern MMA fighters do not train ONLY in the ring. However, good MMA fighters NEVER try to train by:
- breaking boards
- doing forms

They DO train by:
- dead drilling: for re-enforcing a SINGLE new technique being learned, this is largely de-emphasized when a fighter is preparing for a fight
- shadowboxing: dynamic movement, takes up a small percentage of training time, mostly done for warmup
- doing padwork: dynamic movement against a moving target, and sometimes resisting opponent, takes up a medium amount of training time
- doing bagwork: dynamic movement against a moving target, takes up about a medium amount of time
- sparring: dynamic movement against a resisting opponent, takes up a large amount of time

Forms are a waste of time if someone's trying to learn how to fight.

C. Yeah, your not bursting any bubbles here. I know that you think you're smart but I've had the same thought about fighting multiple opponents, as have millions of other people. I never said that I could take on 8 opponents. What I said was that I visualized 8 opponents when practicing a form. It's a way of keeping focused. I don't believe I would have an advantage over anyone, alone or otherwise, before I fight them. To do that would just be asking for failure. I'll tell you this though: If I ever DO have to fight more than one person, I'm not going to say "Hey guys, wait here while I run home and get my 1911 and my baseball bat." I, unlike you, am hopefully going to confront the situation in a realistic manner.

Ok, so remind me again how all this visualization during forms is going to carry over to a fight? Confronting a situation in which you need to fight unarmed against multiple opponents in a realistic manner means acknowledging you're going to get your ass kicked if you try fighting back unarmed, and the only reasonable solutions are: stopping the fight, running, or using a force multiplier (i.e. weapon, friends, etc.). Unlike me. Uh-huh. Please tell me exactly how I'm being unrealistic about this. How exactly would YOU plan on confronting a situation with multiple opponents?

I hate to burst YOUR bubble but fighting in cages has been around for a lot longer than the late 80's. Not to mention, I never said anything about MMA in my first post. You pulled that one right out of your cock holster.

Oh really? Cage fighting's been around since before the late 80s? There's a reason why cagefighting is nearly synonymous with MMA. Hm. Ok, I'll give you the early 80s, maybe even late 70s if you push it. Oh, you meant before that? Please cite your proof. No, seriously. I'm waiting. Oh, and Bloodsport and Mad Max don't count as historical documents. Me and my cock holster will be waiting. I shoot from the hip. Or pelvis, if you want to be specific.

Not so impressive...the miliatry probably has one that can run through that forest and can pick off another moving target with one shot.

bhyphenlow. you should go look up the word "worship" as it does not apply to how you are using it.
Every Christian I've ever met take their preachers word for fact and do no reasearch into their outrageous clams.
Heck, the preachers don't even have the confidence to tell their congregation the truth about who wrote the bible (they don't know)...most learn this in seminary. this book list should help you understand beter.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/my-books-list-4chris.doc
studying various scriptures/teachings to develop your own world view IS lazy if you do not research who wrote them, how the messages were translated into other langauges and then edited and how they've changed the meaning through subsequent editions, langauges and versions.
it's a moving target to base ones worldview on.

Not a very fast target.

Krupo - 2836 comments
Farhad2000 - 2889 comments


In reply to your comment:

You do realize, however, that you're trying to hit a moving target...

Krupo - 2817 comments
Farhad2000 - 2780 comments

No, historical snuff film. I can't see anyone getting a second shot off with bolt action on moving target at that distance. It does seem the second shot came from different angle.

escape level.. technically I think this needs to evolve into a formula based upon how many frontpage post you want per day. So you would take the number of queue upvotes in the last week (maybe factor in the number of unique queue sifters) and take the average queue submissions per week and figure out the number of votes needed to promote x number of videos. And the number of votes needed would be a moving target. So you might also want to apply this formula only to videos after the first 24 hours which filters out most worthless vids.