X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
spoco2 Member Profile  Member Since: 2006-08-21 Last Power Points used: 2009-09-22 • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 147 Rating: 
134 star points#1 Videos: 2 Top 15 Videos: 11 Votes Received: 3346 Average Votes Per Video: 32.80 Votes Cast: 1282 Comments Posted: 2859 • browse Comments Applauded: 61 Sifted Videos: 102 Sift Talk Posts: 16 Quality Sift Talk Posts: 2 Dead Pool Fixes: 30 Profile Views: 11870 Highest Ranked Comments |
Art Videos Submitted by spoco2
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Thanks
In reply to this comment by littledragon_79:
omg that is *quality
Although I'm still scratching my head at how there is a giant desert behind the Smithsonian.
I fully got his point for god's sake.
My issue was that he had to put in there "and I happen to think she's a bit ugly". How was that needed in any way... did he feel the need to just ensure that he has such high standards that he would never find her attractive. It's sad and belittling to women. If it were a video of some guy doing a great cover, there'd more than likely be no comments on their looks at all.
I GET that it shouldn't be in the title to get views... what YOU don't get is that it's really not cool to slip in a comment that she's ugly when he's supposedly saying that looks don't come into it.
>> ^dannym3141:
So wrong. That's not what he's doing at all. He doesn't give a shit about the talent, he just doesn't want sex to be the factor that gets the views/votes. If someone says a girl is cute/not in a comment, that means the video is already being viewed and cannot be swayed by the comment which states she is cute/not. He says the video should stand on whether or not the performance is good, not whether or not you can get enough people looking at your video of a "cute girl".
Sift is turning into daily newspapers. Put a good title, get more sales. Right or wrong, accurate or not, put a good title. "BIG TITTIES ON PAGE 3" is a good one. If the french president makes a speech, report on his wife "Cute redhead in sexy dress watches french husband make speech".
Get his point now?
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
Tell me, is it possible to be any more oversensitive?
It's not about being sensitive. Normally I don't care so much about this sort of thing, but it's getting annoying how much people manipulate titles to try to pull in views. Whether she's cute or not; and I happen to think she's a bit ugly; has nothing to do with this video. This is a talented duo performing a song. The video ought to be able to stand on that.
You go to great lengths to try to put the talent in display in the video over the looks of the girl, and yet manage to say she's ugly... bravo.
Sift is turning into daily newspapers. Put a good title, get more sales. Right or wrong, accurate or not, put a good title. "BIG TITTIES ON PAGE 3" is a good one. If the french president makes a speech, report on his wife "Cute redhead in sexy dress watches french husband make speech".
Get his point now?
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
Tell me, is it possible to be any more oversensitive?
It's not about being sensitive. Normally I don't care so much about this sort of thing, but it's getting annoying how much people manipulate titles to try to pull in views. Whether she's cute or not; and I happen to think she's a bit ugly; has nothing to do with this video. This is a talented duo performing a song. The video ought to be able to stand on that.
You go to great lengths to try to put the talent in display in the video over the looks of the girl, and yet manage to say she's ugly... bravo.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
How is this not further up already? *promote
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
*promote the rhyming goodness
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Brilliant stuff. Pranks where no one is hurt, shamed, scared... it's just great performance art really.
Great stuff.
*promote
Sorry for the dupeage. I always try to be as thorough as possible when sifting, but I do miss dupes from time to time. Let me forward the dupe request along to someone (BF, maybe) to see if they can transfer the votes over to you.
Best,
-Kev
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
*dupeof http://www.videosift.com/video/Hugh-Jackman-Daniel-Craig-interrupted-by-cell-phone
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Having just said what I did above... I've always been torn about filesharing in general and people trying to justify doing it.
I do it... but I know it's wrong really.
If I download music or a movie and I enjoy it, how is it right that I not be giving the artist compensation for that work?
Most people who copy stuff will say 'Yeah, but the artist doesn't get much anyway, it's the evil record/movie companies that get most of the money, so fuck them'.
Except that doesn't solve the problem does it? Just because you don't like the corporations, not getting any money to the artist doesn't solve a thing.
Other people say 'music/information should be free man'. Um... ok, but then how do those who make said music or information make a living? Hmmm, if they're not paid for the thing they spend time creating and others do enjoy consuming... how are they supposed to make money?
And if you say 'well, they should tour and make money that way', then get stuffed. I KNOW they CAN make money that way, and do, but there are those who produce music in ways that don't translate to live shows, and then it only works for those that are in the areas where the acts do tour. So you're saying it's ok for those outside those areas to consume the music for free and not give the artist anything just because they live in some area that bands don't tour? Riiight.
Definitely there's arguments for using filesharing better than it is, definitely there are arguments for throwing god awful DRM out the window, definitely there are arguments for looking at different ways of delivering music and movies to people, but just saying to all 'have at it' is not the answer either.
If you think you're entitled to music and movies and books for free (not lent, but to keep), and that the creators of those works deserve no compensation for their work, then you're a fool.
If you can think up a way to make everyone happy in this debate... then you're a genius!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Beyonce-Gives-Taylor-Swift-give-her-acceptance-speech
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Thanks for trying
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Fixed (via adding it to my list in desc)
In reply to this comment by Crake:
Ahem.
And the internet thing... we do have many players in the market, but the process for me to switch is painful due to a number of problems.
Really painful.
But pricing and download limits in Australia is a lot to do with the distances needed to be covered vs population density.
Although our new 'national broadband plan' is supposed to fix all that.
Ahem
I'll believe that when I see it.
>> ^blankfist:
It's hard to get that image out of your head, so you're right not to want to watch it. Sometimes things are hard to unwatch. I refused to watch any of the beheading videos online back when they seemed to be circulated freely, and I'm more than glad I didn't watch them. Just the before and after images they show online are scarred into my mind's eye.
You've passed your data allowance? Good ol' nationalized internet!
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Two things stopping me watching or voting for this:
1) I would rather not have the image of someone being beaten to death in my head
&
2) We've reached our data allowance at work so it'd cost 15c a Mb to watch it.
You've passed your data allowance? Good ol' nationalized internet!
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Two things stopping me watching or voting for this:
1) I would rather not have the image of someone being beaten to death in my head
&
2) We've reached our data allowance at work so it'd cost 15c a Mb to watch it.