YTMND Search

 (0.00)

So they invade a country based on the fact some guy made a video taking credit for it? Come on! Also, in 2007 there was a new bin Laden video released where he had a black beard (no gray hair), whereas in the old videos it was gray...

 (0.00)

Its Ptolemy by Aphex Twin, or at least based on it.

 (0.00)

Wow, I guess the stories are true... I've always thought it was a rumour that Umfuld downvotes people's sites based on how they vote (on sites other than his, that is)...

 (5.00)

you're trying way to hard to look clever by deconstructing something for the sake of deconstructing it. i even felt bad and messaged you, apologizing for reacting in a mean way, when you accused me of being nice to try and get you to agree with me or something even though nothing i was saying was trying to persuade you in any way. i said "the saying is older than dirt" or something, as if to say "who cares, it's an old saying." now you're trying as hard as you can to look like you're "thinking freely" and "independently," or whatever your idea of that is, just for the hell of it. YOU'RE EVEN COMPARING YOURSELF TO WHAT YOU IDENTIFY AS THE ELITE OF SOCIETY! so great excuse for doing that.<br /><br />what you're bitching about in the first place is a pretty abstract concept. it can be applied in different ways to different contexts. it's not by any means suggesting that ALL good intentions pave the road to hell. this is what you're assuming. so YOUR premise is fucked up, dude. not mine. have you ever tried "abstract thinking?" do you know what that means? because if so, i'd like you to define it for me without using google. the old saying is completely dependent on WHAT you're applying it to. i think you missed that part. going on your "super smart free thinker doctor/layer/engineer" tangent, from what i've seen it's most commonly used to describe religious people using religion as a base for committing "evil" acts, most commonly by the more liberal religious describing the fanatically religious.<br /><br />and literally, EVERY ONE of your bullshit premises you’ve spun up incorrectly deconstruct the concept. Especially your building premise. Like, I can’t even begin to break that down for you. The more you bitch, the more you prove you do not understand (1) the concept (2) how to “deconstruct” something in an intelligent way (3) interact with people on the internet.

 (0.00)

didn't view, but based upon the rainbow, i assume its ghey as hell.

 (3.00)

If an idea can be so easily broken down, doesn't that mean it is nonsense? Suppose I came up with an elaborate theory based on the premise that 2 + 2 = 5. No matter how good and otherwise logical my theory is, the fact that it relies on a flawed premise shows that it is nonsensical.<br /><br />I don't believe the "road to hell is paved with good intentions". For the simple reasons I brought up. For the same reason 2 + 2 is not actually 5

 (5.00)

I vote based on the site, not on the user.

 (5.00)

This site would be a better place if everyone else voted based on that.

 (4.00)

Is the only site based on how 'NARV' and 'MARV' sound alike?

 (5.00)

Enthused to see a Marv site on U&C. Slightly less enthused to see it was made by Fourest. But I vote based on the site, not the user.

 (2.00)

Regarding reddit, there is a difference between liking a website/organization/company and liking the owners.<br /><br />Meaning that just because one posts on reddit or joined reddit does not mean anything about the poster. I don't think some 17 year old says [i]"Hey, the Koch brothers are cool! I'm gonna join reddit!"[/i]<br /><br />If that were true, then everyone who likes Marvel Comics would also be Disney lovers. That is because Disney bought out Marvel. Now, I am sure that there are people who both like Spiderman AND Mickey Mouse. But that does not mean that everyone who likes Spiderman will [b]always[/b] like Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.<br /><br />I don't frequent reddit much, but I am still sure that people of all political persuasions use that site. So it therefore does not make sense to assume that the users there are necessarily Koch brother lovers. I am sure there might be some. But that is a big difference from [b]all[/b] or even [i]most[/i].<br /><br />I am quoting you here: "[i](Btw, not sure how people are expected to follow the Good Doctor based on the principles of Liberty: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, [b]when he strongly believes the state should have control of women's bodies[/b]. But I'm not surprised you can pull that off with remarkable ease.)[/i]"<br /><br />No. He does not in fact say that the state should control women's bodies. You make it sound like he wants to cage them up their entire lives like serial kidnappers. He clearly favored legality of birth control pills, morning after pills and even individual states allowing abortion. He adamantly opposed federal outlawing of abortion. Not the same as me, but also light years from the religious right.<br /><br />Also, I was quickly skimming your original nsfwcorp.com link. I think I am starting to see some problems emerging and some alarms are going off. I will get back to you when I read it fully.

 (5.00)

Did I miss some sort of meeting where we're supposed to make a new fad based on Rob Ford?

 (5.00)

Sorry, I don't vote based on the user, unlike him.

 (0.00)

Expected this to be a Anystrom site based on the title.

 (5.00)

Covered all of the bases

 (1.00)

hey, remember when you made that comment about how "all jews work hard but keep their 'monies' within the 'jew community,'" and then went on to compare "the jews to the blacks?" mostly based on shitty data on poverty and your (extremely, EXTREMELY) brief encounters with what you called "city people" (black or jew, it was unclear) and then you somehow brought pregnant women and food stamps into it. the comment took up half a fuckin page and made you look like exactly what youre representing in your site.

 (5.00)

look away as i wipe the tear from my eye<br /><br />.<br /><br />our next game is called party quirks it features greg proops as the host of the party and all the other contestants as people at the party each contestant has been given a specific way of acting or quirk and its the host's job to guess who they are based on how they improvise so take it away greg

 (5.00)

TESLA IS FULL OF SHIT!! ACE OF BASE TOO!! YOUR MOTHER!!

 (0.00)

This was the true story that twilight was based off of.

 (0.00)

""No, he didn't. He proved it's true if certain assumptions are true -- but we can never prove these assumptions."<br /><br />Which assumptions are those?"<br />That the speed of light is always the same everywhere, right?<br /><br />""By the way, did you know Newton was a Christian and, supposedly, he said it's ridiculous to think there is no God?"<br /><br />He lived in a time when non-christians were burned at the stake, so he could have said that out of self-preservation."<br />At the time of Newton? I don't think so.<br /><br />"Yes, false religion is bad... "<br /><br />Well now you are talking about FALSE religion instead of religion in general. You did not throw that qualifier in earlier. "But I argue that if religion is based upon unquestioning belief, then it should not be taken seriously."<br />Well, think about this: if God exists (He does), all the arguments for or against the existence of God mean nothing -- they won't change reality. So does it really matter to Reality via what way you arrive at the truth? Of course, it would be better to prove it... <br /><br />""I'm saying it's idiotic to think life can evolve without the Creator"<br /><br />Where is the evidence that shows a creator?"<br />I would say in the fact that humans exist. <br /><br />""but people beLIEve it because they don't want there to be a God..."<br /><br />How do you know that some of those who don't believe in God don't actually wish there was one? I think this is psychologizing a very large group of people."<br />Then let them believe... What's stopping them?

 (3.00)

[i]"No, he didn't. He proved it's true if certain assumptions are true -- but we can never prove these assumptions."[/i]<br /><br />Which assumptions are those?<br /><br />[i]"By the way, did you know Newton was a Christian and, supposedly, he said it's ridiculous to think there is no God?"[/i]<br /><br />He lived in a time when non-christians were burned at the stake, so he could have said that out of self-preservation.<br /><br />[i]"Yes, false religion is bad... "[/i]<br /><br />Well now you are talking about FALSE religion instead of religion in general. You did not throw that qualifier in earlier. But I argue that if religion is based upon unquestioning belief, then it should not be taken seriously. What I am more likely to take seriously is information based upon examination, preferably acquired with an unbiased open mind.<br /><br />[i]"I'm saying it's idiotic to think life can evolve without the Creator"[/i]<br /><br />Where is the evidence that shows a creator?<br /><br />[i]"but people beLIEve it because they don't want there to be a God..."[/i]<br /><br />How do you know that some of those who don't believe in God don't actually wish there was one? I think this is psychologizing a very large group of people.

 (1.00)

Vote based on the site, not on the user.

 (0.00)

"What? Einstein went out of his way to prove the theory of relativity in his publishings. It is considered quite accurate to this day. In fact, satellite transmissions, GPS positioning and space transmissions to things like the mars rover would be impossible without the theory of relativity."<br />No, he didn't. He proved it's true if certain assumptions are true -- but we can never prove these assumptions. I knew GPS was based on Relativity Theory but there may be a better theory in the future... Anyway, I don't really understand Relativity Theory, so let's change the subject... By the way, did you know Newton was a Christian and, supposedly, he said it's ridiculous to think there is no God?<br /><br />""And in fact, some of modern science is merely a religion.."<br /><br />Oh really? Do you mean the parts which contradict your beliefs? What a coincidence that would be."<br />For instance. Another example is anthropogenic global warming and psychiatry (I believe psychopaths are possessed by demons). Let's forget Physics; I don't think it's a good example...<br /><br />"Besides, this clause of yours is actually damning of religion because it says some science is so bad that it is LIKE religion. It uses religion as a low mark to compare science against."<br />Yes, false religion is bad... I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist (dog breeds are a product of evolution); I'm saying it's idiotic to think life can evolve without the Creator but people beLIEve it because they don't want there to be a God...

 (3.00)

[i]"So Relativity Theory isn't science because you can't prove it?"[/i]<br /><br />What? Einstein went out of his way to prove the theory of relativity in his publishings. It is considered quite accurate to this day. In fact, satellite transmissions, GPS positioning and space transmissions to things like the mars rover would be impossible without the theory of relativity.<br /><br />[i]"Absolute certainty exists only in mathematics;..."[/i]<br /><br />This may be true, maybe not, because physics is widely regarded as the gold standard of precision and consistency compared to the rest of science. But even if math were by itself alone in absolute certainty, it does not mean that the other sciences DO NOT have the most valid explanations of natural phenomena.<br /><br />For example, the science of biology is based upon careful examination of evidence, then for something to be regarded as valid science, the experiment has to be repeated by multiple other scientists.<br /><br />Are you familiar with the scientific method?

 (3.00)

I am sorry, but this is false. There is a great deal of evidence as well as theories developed based upon gathered evidence:<br /><br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorig<br />ins.shtml<br /><br />http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.htm<br />l<br /><br />https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130716-the-surprising-ori<br />gins-of-lifes-complexity/<br /><br /><br />If there is no proof or even logic of something, it is not even considered science. But as you can see from the links above, a great deal of research has come up with a variety of proofs.

 (3.00)

and another thing - if you don't have any verifiable facts or proofs on your side and claim it is based on feeling, then you are in no position to say that someone else is wrong on something.<br /><br />Because to tell something that they are wrong means there are facts that they are in defiance of. But if you only have feelings, then you don't have that basis.

 (2.00)

Voted based on the site and not the user

 (5.00)

I was a TV junkie before MTV - remember HBO's video Jukebox?<br /><br />I had remote-less B/W rabbit ears in my BR too.<br /><br />I had a 13" color TV until 2007.<br /><br />I still only have a 32" HD, but without high-end cable or Blueray or HD-DVD. I will NEVER get a 3D tv.<br /><br />I do rent HD movie titles though.<br /><br />I'm not even sure PS can make animated PNGs.<br /><br />My image quality fetish is really based on stills, and it's probably stupid of me to apply it to gif animations. But when I see overly dithered, desaturated, blocky, lossy gifs, I cringe. (Unless it's well-done intentional glitch art.)<br /><br />I had to take this: [site hydrogeo:site]<br /><br />and improve the image to this: [site indydoesit:site]

 (5.00)

To be honest I think the 1-to-5 system is stupid. People want to give their own vote as much weight as possible, so the logical thing to do is "split voting" with 1's and 5's. Youtube, Reddit, and other popular sites realized this so they went from numerical ratings to binary vote +/- systems.<br /><br />Of course, max doesn't exactly stay ahead of the curve. In fact, the downfall of YTMND can be attributed to max failing to stay ahead of the curve.<br /><br />Back in early 2005, max could have realized that the advent of home broadband meant his dialup-friendly gif/mp3 host was about to be left in the dust. People were ready for a full-motion video host, and during that crucial moment, YTMND was the frontrunner for multimedia hosting. If you think about it, YTMND had already gotten over the biggest hill - people knew about it.<br /><br />The time was right to upgrade. The phrase "Buy low; sell high" couldn't have applied more. The dot-com crash of the early 00's was like the video game crash of '83...the demand wasn't gone, but skittish short-sighted investors thought it was just a bubble that had popped until Nintendo swooped in '85 and took an unsuspecting market by storm. It was the exact same situation in '05: everyone thought the dot-com market had crashed, but casual internet users had more bandwidth than ever before, and they wanted a simple web-based video hosting service instead of dicey file-sharing networks. <br /><br />YTMND would have been perfect, the recognition was there, max had arguably the biggest corner on the web multimedia market, his traffic was soaring and hardware prices were at an all time low. The opportunity was there; max sat on his rear end because of some pretentious artsy-fartsy desire to cling to the format of Image, Sound, Text. In 2006, then-little-known website "Youtube" sold for $1.6 billion.<br /><br />A lot of us look back at opportunities we missed and laugh...max, do you cry?

 (1.00)

i gave this site due consideration and voted based on my true and sincere assessment of its quality