Featured Member Comment
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “he was probably trying to run over that obnoxious squawking bird he seemed to have pinned down” read more by rottenseed
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “he was probably trying to run over that obnoxious squawking bird he seemed to have pinned down” read more by rottenseed
Fletch
Member Profile
Member Since: 2006-08-09
Charter Subdomain: http://fletch.videosift.com
Favorite Sift: Farador: a reunion with your old D&D group (12 min)
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 2
Charter Subdomain: http://fletch.videosift.com
Favorite Sift: Farador: a reunion with your old D&D group (12 min)
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 2
Comments
Subscribe
Videos Submitted by FletchNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (0)
- sifted videos (73)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (10)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 106
Rating:
83 star points
Votes Received: 1922
Votes Cast: 3492
Comments Posted: 2070 • browse
Sifted Videos: 73
Sift Talk Posts: 4
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 3
Dead Pool Fixes: 9
Profile Views: 67633
Rating:
83 star pointsVotes Received: 1922
Votes Cast: 3492
Comments Posted: 2070 • browse
Sifted Videos: 73
Sift Talk Posts: 4
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 3
Dead Pool Fixes: 9
Profile Views: 67633
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
YouTube called. They want their troll back.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
Thanks. That did it. I had tried changing the video size, but I apparently had something else wrong when I did. Started from the beginning and just changed the size... works.
In reply to this comment by firefly:
The embed code's width you have listed exceeds VS' allowed maximum of 500, change that and you should be OK. (make sure you change it both places)
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
*dead
you cna only change the thumb from youtube, if it's your playlist.
go to edit playlist, pick the vid you want and make it playlist icon .
cheers.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
*findthumb
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.
http://www.deezer.com/?urlIdSong=4857
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
http://www.lyrics-top.com/1705-238/five-for-fighting/100-years.html
In reply to this comment by maatc:
Whoa, looks like he got whipped around when he hit the end of the rope.
Whats the music? Sounds like Dave Matthews Band...No?
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
*dead
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
I couldn't find a postable clip of it, but if you google "fire piston", you can see what exactly we are talking about. Things are really pricey, but there are so few people making them, and I have yet to find a mainstream company mass-producing them (although I haven't looked very hard). Most that you can buy online are hand-made.
EDIT: BTW, the particular show in which it is demonstrated was the Survivorman episode where he is on the northwest coast of Alaska.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Fletch, TheSnipe, or anyone: Share that video clip on VS if it is online please.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
Well, I've never heard a version that wasn't "mother mother". Still, I was only referring to the word "tit" being blocked. As a matter of fact, here is an even BETTER quality version than the other one I suggested (also uncensored): http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1454895290
In reply to this comment by arrendek:
I have the CD actually, and the lyrics are "mother f**ker", if I remember correctly. Maybe I'll check one of these days.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
"Mother mother" are the real lyrics. The part that is censored is the word "tit" at 2:46 and 1:45. It's not censored in the version I sent you. But it's your video. You can do what you want. And you're welcome. It's a kick-ass song.
In reply to this comment by arrendek:
@Fletch - That one is censored as well, as far as I can tell. (i.e. "Mother Mother")
Thanks for the save!
I did read as much as I could find in old talk posts about the philosophy of it. Seems like it caused quite a stir when the feature was first introduced. I guess I do understand the arguments like arrendek's. I think the differences of opinion arise from what different people see as the purpose of VS. To me, having 20000 videos that are all liked by someone or another is less valuable than 2000 that are all true gems. But as you say, to each his own.
I didn't need to read anything to know that down voting a post because of who submitted it is bogus. That just seems like common sense. It's unfortunate that a few folks here seem to flagrantly disregard that, though.
btw - your avatar, now that is cute. mine, not so much.
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
In reply to this comment by jonny:
By voting down while a video is in the queue, one has a chance to affect the post. Afterwards, it seems, it's not much more than a "your taste sucks."
Exactly my point. Why would you want to "affect the post" by preventing such an uncontroversial video from getting published? Was it because he applied the "cute" label and you didn't find it so? I'd never tell someone how they are supposed to vote, so don't get me wrong here. If you read back on some of the ST's on the subject, you know there are as many ideas about exactly when downvotes should be used as there are members here. But, generally, I think people choose to no-vote non-offensive videos at least until they make it out of the queue. If a video is popular enough, it will make it out regardless of any no-votes, but so many just squeak by, or just miss by a vote or two. I'm not saying every video should be published, either. Read arrendek's bio. Pretty much the way I see it. Kind of a "to each his own" view.
[edit]
Ah, so a video can be discarded even after publication. That changes my feelings about down voting after publication being more rude. But I still think it makes more sense not to wait - if the point of a down vote is to express the opinion that one really doesn't want a video on the sift. I do try to be very judicious with down votes.
I've seen several videos make it out of the queue, only to be discarded for content, dupe, self-link, etc. Again, you can use a downvote for any reason you like. That doesn't mean we have to agree on it's use. You can apply "to each his own" here too. The only thing that is against VS rules ("entirely unacceptable") is fragging, using it as a personal vendetta against a poster.
One last point - SG had no such qualms about down voting my video while it was in the queue, and it didn't seem to bother you then, Fletch. In fact, nearly all of the down votes I received on my submissions were while they were in the queue.
I don't pay attention to the comments of, or even see, every video, so I'm sure there are lot's of examples counter to my view of things. The only reason I even noticed your downvote was because maatc referred to it in his comment. As far as the Jesus Christ Action Figure video... I think you'll find (if you haven't already noticed), that any videos of a religious nature, even one so inane as that, tend to polarize many people here. I thought it was funny. I upvoted it. But the same topics that can offend and create tension and conflict in the real world can offend and create tension and conflict here. What I thought was funny may have offended SG. Also, we're all human. Sometimes we just break our own rules
(BTW, I bolded my portions so it was easier to separate from yours, not because I was yelling at ya.)
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
*dead
Possible replacement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqAwtorUTE
Let me know how it works out for ya.
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>>Still would love the drop-down comments box to scale with selected resolution.
If you do a hard reload (ctrl+shift+reload) you'll see much better sized pop-up boxes for comments and playlists.
In reply to your comment:
“I was hoping for some examples and some lively debate. You gave no examples (c'mon... flawed and outdated views on acupuncture? Acupuncture?!?), and although we are all entitled our own opinions regarding others, I think your personal opinion of Shermer is baseless. As far as debate, I don't think it will be possible to meaningfully debate with someone who views "science" as vague, thinks the AMA is the second-biggest corporation ever, and invokes Star Trek in his/her argument.
Even if Shermer were belligerent, science is not, and that is something I don't think you understand. As Ann Druyan explained very beautifully here (coincidentally, Shermer is sitting in the audience), scientists are human and have bias's. They can be assholes. They can be dismissive, strident, condescending, intractable, and prejudice, just like every other human being. But scientific method ultimately wins the day as its' built-in checks and balances overcome these things.
Your comment was all over the place, bighead, but I think your pessimism towards science and scientific method is based in ignorance rather some anecdotal experience. Read more. Think critically, not paranoidally. Don't be afraid to expose yourself to things you "know" to be untrue. If nothing else, you may learn the minds of those you disagree with. This isn't meant to be condescending. Just friendly advice.”
Shermer views on acupuncture were. kind of funny ...im glad you admit that shemmer was belligerent. that was my maine point.
shemer thinks acupuncture is based on a quack theory. he thicks that he the can prove 2000 years of life energy theories from the fare east as wishful thinking, with junk the establishment (Harvard) taught him.
as for you saying i think science is vague. that i would say is a mater of semantics.
science is a vague word in that . to talk about this subject i wanted to distinguish between value of science and pitfalls of modern scientific method. particularly the gold standard of randomized controlled studies.
what are you views on the ama and its highjack scientific method. do you not agree that the ama has used its power to promote itself under the banner of " we are so smart and our rigorous double blind studies are to help man kind. " i think the ama is extremely belligerent this respect
science is important and useful and can be used like a good tool that it is . but
my problem is with scientism. shemer is one who contends that scientism is the way of the modern world. this is a extremist view. even the establishment acknowledges this.
i repeat
1 scientific method is not wrong or unjust in it self but that individuals often use scientific method to achieve fame (shemmer) wealth the (ama).
2. that it doubtfull that shimmer will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong.
3. that science is not something that began in the 19th century.
4. that good science is a tool not a bandwagon that trys to debunk rather then understand.
star trek was a metaphor to the way people are so busy looking for big answers to "Save" or understand mankind at the cost of failing to see simple natural truths with out the blockage of being tide down to needing to get down to the jest of everything.
and you pint out the scientest / humans have so many flaws. i dont buy that excuse. its the same excuse people use when the get busted riging their so called scientific studys so they get fame and money . you should slow dawn and not just dismiss bad moral character. that is at the root of my skepticism of mikey Shermer and his followers who preach intolerance and dogmatism. remember other key words money
establishment
moral character
champion