>> ^lucky760:
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.


Be careful of the tyranny of good intentions.

>> ^lucky760:
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.

I've been reading through all this and struggling with how to put my thoughts down until I read this. Lucky, you hit the nail on the head. I agree that the down-votes should be deleted and QM should be warned. If after that he decides to vote for Dubya a second time then he will get what he deserves...

I haven't voiced my opinion on this matter and I probably won't, especially when QM has yet to respond, but I would like to speak in general to the issue of abusing power.

I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.

If something should happen in a situation like this, I think the downvotes should be deleted and the offender warned, only to be banned if they in any way use their powers to attack someone again. (Or the offender should just be banned outright.) To do nothing is to condone it, and condoning abuse of power is like voting Dubya in for a second term to undermine the fabric with which this community has always been woven.

maybe you're planning a sneak attack, but dammit, get yourself over to the roast

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
"You are like our Colmes in Hannity and Colmes. You give us something to rail against."

And, like Colmes, he's an ineffective tool.

"It is illegal in some places to film without both parties permission (or at least the audio is illegal)."

You might be right, JoeDirt, but I think that public place is public property.

Angie Jolie and Brad Pitt probably never sign releases for the road-side sneak attacks launched on them by tabloid swine.

Bottom line, in my opinion: nobody has to ask anybody's permission to videotape news-worthy events.

When we start arresting people for filming such things, all it does is keep the truth from being told.

hate it, sneak attack...

spoilers;

zip to about 4min in to see the irish giant fight the junkie whore

(and a sneak attack by Cone-Zone at about 5:30 in)

(... and then knocking her teeth out at 7:00 in)

(not at all similar, but reminds me of the 'funny sneak' attack baptism in Nacho Libre, where Jack Black sneaks a bowl of water under his friends face and plops his face down in it before he knows whats going on)