X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
dannym3141 Member Profile Member Since: 2007-11-30 Last Power Points used: never • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 426 Rating: 
26 star pointsTop 15 Videos: 4 Votes Received: 554 Average Votes Per Video: 46.17 Votes Cast: 431 Comments Posted: 1411 • browse Comments Applauded: 19 Sifted Videos: 12 Sift Talk Posts: 4 Quality Sift Talk Posts: 3 Dead Pool Fixes: 11 Profile Views: 7033 Highest Ranked Comments Member's Highest Rated Videos |
Sports Videos Submitted by dannym3141
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^gwiz665:
Who are the ones that we left in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers!♪
"...but i repeat myself"
-Karl
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Without being insulted - my spider senses were tingling on autotune at times. Could have been coincidence. Curse modern technology fuelling my paranoia over talent.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Just thought i'd let you know - "wonder" means amazement at something, "to look on in wonder" or it could mean to think something over, "i wonder if this is right?". Pronounced wun-der. Wander means to walk around, and i think that's what you mean. Pronounced one-der.
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
My job isn't to care about the money spent on this. That was awesome; suspenceful!
There was so much going on there. That really takes the art of film making to the next level. Really, I mean, in the realm of "entertainment", that just painted one second of an amazing action scene, letting us wonder around as if we lived outside of time.
I bet that is what it is like to be Q
*quality
But it's over and done with now, I'm moving on and those I've talked with do to.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Right on. Though i fear dag will of course reply to my reply. There's none as blind as those who don't want to see.
I didn't even raise the "Why the hell are you referring to these people as females, they petitioned for equal rights, please oblige by those rights" argument! I fear it wouldn't have gone well
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I thank you for your support and that you did not take sides. I agree with you on the libel, but let's just let that thread die.
I've made my peace with the people directly involved and I've had my say, even if it hurt. If you feel strongly about it, which I am grateful for, please hold it private with dag or whoever you are discussing it with. Your post is as good an ending note as any to this whole farcical thing.
I've made my peace with the people directly involved and I've had my say, even if it hurt. If you feel strongly about it, which I am grateful for, please hold it private with dag or whoever you are discussing it with. Your post is as good an ending note as any to this whole farcical thing.
I'm not a good fighter. Don't want to be. Talk to me anytime.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I'm too experienced at it, my ability betrays my experience, and that's a crying shame and a waste of many days of my life, and a pointless skill to have.
Have no concern whatsoever, i like you very much and i would love to talk to you again any time about anything. I love cycling and swimming. Take your pick of these topics and i will begin at length to bore you to death.
In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
You don't have to like me, and that's ok. I'm sorry I have pissed you off in some way... I only intended to defend myself.
I very much agree life is too short. Im not one for conflict. Im no good at it, and I loathe it.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Forget the whole thing. You're wonderful and i love you. Life's too short for this.
I very much agree life is too short. Im not one for conflict. Im no good at it, and I loathe it.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Forget the whole thing. You're wonderful and i love you. Life's too short for this.
I was offended by what you said and felt I needed to defend myself. End of story. We should be able to talk about this calmly.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
My reply seems to have disappeared into the annals of videosift.
1. The upshot of having a forum discussion is that it is a forum - every party feels the need to make their statement heard to the forum and not just to a specific individual. I reserve the right to have my say in a forum discussion when someone addresses me (and even when not).
2. I am finished with it regardless of this "stop talking then, no you stop talking, no you, no you, you're still talking" nonsense of your final statement. When i reply to you, it doesn't mean i am "still talking about it". To expect me not to reply to a conversation with you borders on the childish.
3. If the issue was not open to discussion from the public, and if you didn't wish the public to have their say, don't bring it up in fucking public.
I've tried to be polite but your comments are rediculous to me, inf-vag. I've had 10 minutes to calm down before i reply and it's only made me more intense in what i feel.
The matter was brought up in public. Of all the people that got involved and of ALL the people that had their say, you decided to go for me. One of the very few people that appealed to reason and fairness. FOR EVERYONE. Not just for one or the other party, for EVERYONE.
I wonder if you went for anyone that sided with the accusors in that thread? But i care not. I'm done with this bullshit. I'm sure your neutrality knows no bounds. You're better than this, and if you weren't so involved you'd realise how wrong your comment was to me.
Slap my wrist for getting involved in a public discussion and appealing for reason and fairness for all parties? The idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Perhaps the original post was correct, perhaps this site really has become the kind of place where we're dictated by ignorant people making life difficult for others. I know i'm convinced.
In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Oh, you were replying to Dag... maybe you should have done what you were saying we should have done and PM him or deal with it privately.
Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.
Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.
And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.
I am finished with the matter now.
In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?
While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.
Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:
You've done a horrible, horrible thing.
I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.
You have missed the point dag.
Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.
Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.
What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.
This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:
Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.
I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.
Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"
Wish away a phrase.... that's rich.
Well, be finished with it then and stop talking about it.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I only replied to dag.
And i assure you, you do not understand the term libel if you think that it can be wished away with the phrase "i assure you that's not the case". In fact, that's the very definition of libel.
I am finished with the matter now.
In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Danny, with all due respect,let it go. The actual people involved did... isn't it time you did the same?
While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.
Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:
You've done a horrible, horrible thing.
I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.
You have missed the point dag.
Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.
Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.
What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.
This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:
Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.
I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.
Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"
While you claim to be fighting for what's fair... you've missed the point. By insinuating any sort of libel you are out of line. Libel infers misrepresentation and I assure that is not the case. That doesn't sound very fair to me.
Fact of the matter is that it's over. Time to give it a rest.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^dag:
>> ^dannym3141:
You've done a horrible, horrible thing.
I think that comment in itself is pretty horrible- do you want these females to feel shame for coming forward with this? Gwiz has certainly framed this to make himself look like a victim here- but I think the facts of the matter are definitely in dispute. He's soft-pedaled the description of his actions in a way that makes it seem that this was all just a misunderstanding. After corresponding with everyone involved in this- I have to say - I have serious doubts about his account of communication and contact with the three female sifters.
I would have preferred that these matters were resolved outside the public arena- but I don't think they should be persecuted for coming forward. I want VideoSift to be a safe place to hang out- and make friends. However, if someone states that they don't want anything to do with you- you should leave at that, and don't pursue a relationship. The stopping didn't happen in this case- and it's spilled over into the public.
You have missed the point dag.
Please note that in anything i have said in regards to this thread have been UNBIASED. I am not trying to figure out who is right or who is wrong ABOUT THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. You address me as though i am siding with gwiz, and that is UNTRUE.
Let me reiterate, i am on no one's side.
What this is about is - and please excuse the overly formal and legal term - libel. This would not happen in real life. People go to jail for doing this. You are not allowed to dirty someone's name over a dispute that has not been decided by law. The law in this case would be dag.
This is a case of taking the path of least harm. If this had been dealt with in the correct channels, we could eventually hear about it via a factual statement if we needed to hear about it at all:
Gwiz's name wouldn't have been dirtied.
The accusers would not feel like they were being assaulted for being the victim of what they claim to be an assault.
People like me would not feel angry that the website panders to libellous accusations.
I'm not trying to solve the crime. I am trying to stop this morally objectionable thread. And so should you.
Why am i having to argue with our dictator (who i'd hope would be unbiased) about whether or not libel is morally right? Why am i having to argue with him about taking sides? For christ's sake man get your head out of "Who's right?" and get it into "Is this fair - to ANYONE?"
I hope there are still some left for you - you need to get that silver star.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
I see you've noticed my successes and stole my videos
You will see a place on the right that says "Embeddable Player:". That is the code you want to use to update your video's embed. Let me know if you run into any issues.
If you need help, just send me the links and I'll put them in a playlist for you on my YT account.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Thanks!
And i won't be breaking any rules by making my own playlist and then posting that playlist? No self linkage etc.?
And if i need a hand doing that you're in my crosshairs, so i hope you haven't written checks that you can't cash
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule, but typically if they're YouTube videos, you could make a playlist of all four and embed them as a playlist video which would play all four. If you don't have a YT account, let me know and I'll do it for you and send you the embed page.
Sometimes I have embedded the first part and added the other vids to the comments section, which I don't think you can do because you're not a star. Other times I have posted all parts separately, but typically you don't get the votes needed, because people get funny about that. I'd got with the playlist if you can.
BF
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
blank can i ask you a question please?
I'm looking to post a series of videos (4 of them). What's the normal thing to do for those? Post the first one and link the rest in the comment? Post all 4? Embed a few?
I'd like to know before i spam the videos and need to take them down again
Edit: It's like a documentary type thing. 4 videos.
Sometimes I have embedded the first part and added the other vids to the comments section, which I don't think you can do because you're not a star. Other times I have posted all parts separately, but typically you don't get the votes needed, because people get funny about that. I'd got with the playlist if you can.
BF
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
blank can i ask you a question please?
I'm looking to post a series of videos (4 of them). What's the normal thing to do for those? Post the first one and link the rest in the comment? Post all 4? Embed a few?
I'd like to know before i spam the videos and need to take them down again
Edit: It's like a documentary type thing. 4 videos.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Aaaaand it's gone
In reply to this comment by MikesHL13:
Congrats on the bronze star! You've been on a roll
I can’t find a track, album or artist I’m looking for?
In the future we aim to have all the worlds music available, however, we are currently in beta and are updating our catalogue so it’s possible that you won’t be able to find some of your favorite artists or tracks. We are working really hard to grow our catalogue as quickly as possible by constantly adding new content so you can get more and more music. Unfortunately some artists have opted not to be added to Spotify at this time, some frequently requested artists that are not in Spotify include Metallica, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, ACDC and Led Zeppelin, etc.
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
In reply to this comment by Tymbrwulf:
but that's not Spotify's fault.
I dunno why we need to search for blame in this case, but if it is anyone's fault then it has to be spotify's fault for not getting the rights
any search return that doesn't have the original right at the top is an absolute shambles and an insult
I wanted to point out the fact that the reason that Pink Floyd and all of their songs do not exist on this program is due to the fact that Spotify is a legitimate free streaming music program, and have not obtained the rights to those songs. Blame companies like RIAA, whom are the ones responsible(not the programmers of Spotify)!
I just wanted to tell you that Spotify as a program is great! If it doesn't have your tastes in music I'm sorry, but that's not Spotify's fault.