Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Well a few people have made this point. Is Dave of DavidsFarm now more of a risk now that his account has been terminated by YouTube.

First understand this. The police have made frequent raids of his ranch in the past few years. He is under constant police surveillance. If he posts videos on YouTube or does not post videos to YouTube that will not change what the police do. This is an issue for law enforcement. It is up to the law up there in Canada if he is to be arrested or not. His presence or lack thereof on YouTube will not change that.

What many of us were concerned with and have always been concerned with is the presence of child predators online. Now to those who say I am just focused on DavidsFarm because I am jealous and why don't I focus my time on other real live predators I suggest you look at some of the videos like this one.

I have a history of going after people who harm children. Even as early back in 1997 I along with many others protested the art books of Jock Sturges who was selling books of photographs of children naked and calling it art. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E1DA103FF933A15751C0A96E958260 in fact I was even one of the protest organizers for my city.

Now lets answer a few questions. Can a child predator be reformed. Yes. A child predator can be reformed, however they should have the common sense to not put themselves in a situation where they can be accused again. Dave has not done this. He has continued to interact with kids and freely admits that he markets his channel towards children.

"Everybody knows that the demographics of the Internet is young people and mostly young males, so you have to try to create a type of program that appeals to young males,young males want something short and sweet, something maybe sexy -- so I use pretty women to do my things -- they want maximum excitement, like a big jump or something that's outrageous or crazy . . . that's how the teenage male brain works."


Now Google recently began working with the state of New York to pull child predators off of its sites http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aol-google-yahoo-join-hunt-online-sex-offenders/story?id=9306265

Now hopefully Google will begin working with other states and hopefully with Governments world wide. However should a sex offender who has served his time be forever banned from the internet? Remember, having a YouTube account is not a right. This is a private company and each user must comply with it's terms of service. Furthermore, YouTube reserves the right to amend it's terms of service at any time.

"YouTube reserves the right to amend these Terms of Service at any time and without notice, and it is your responsibility to review these Terms of Service for any changes. Your use of the Service following any amendment of these Terms of Service will signify your assent to and acceptance of its revised terms."

Therefore if YouTube decides on it's own that they no longer want people convicted of sex crimes against children on their website that is YouTube's right to do this.

Dave of DavidsFarm filmed young boys as they masterbated. Furthermore he touched them as they were doing this. This fact is not in dispute. Dave has admitted to this on video. The famous 16:9 interview

Now of course he says that he touched them only for a few seconds so he could get a better shot. Furthermore he says it wasn't about pornography but rather about doing things with the video camera. He also says that he used young boys because nobody else around at that time. Forward to 3:40 of the video above to see this from his own words. Later in that same interview you will hear him claim that he no longer has a sex drive and doesn't even look at pornography anymore. I call bullshit on that. There is no such thing as a man with an internet connection that does not at least occasionally look at porn online.

In this video that he posted to his own youtube channel, he claims that he used to be Bipolar and that is why he did the things that he did.

The issue is not whether a child predator can not enter main stream society. The issue is whether a child predator WHO IS STILL INTERACTING WITH CHILDREN should be allowed to interact with minors online. Furthermore it was shocking to learn that YouTube was willing to turn a blind eye so long as they could make money from it. It is only when the advertisers found out that their ads were on Dave's videos that they complained.

In conclusion child predators should not be online engaging with children. They have a right to housing and the right to hold jobs and to be free from harassment. However when you have someone who has the past that he does, this is one person you don't want talking to kids online. His loss of his YouTube channel will now limit the access he has to meeting new people. He of course still has his current audience who will go to his website when he finishes it, but a new audience will be hard to aquire.

Monday, November 29, 2010

My Advice to SpikeBravo

I uploaded my video helping you out at the request of one of your subscribers. I will do what I can but convincing people to give you money is going to be a hard sell.

The reason is because you have frequently spoken out against your dislike of employment

Forward to 2:40 of that video
Other videos you have produced on your former accounts, "I hate work" and the video on my channel, "He Just Doesn't Get it" (which of course is still private), you have repeatedly stated your dislike of work.

So recently you were able to get an apartment again after once again qualifying for Social Security. However by your own admission you chose to stop collecting cans. Never expecting that your Social Security would run out again? Well it has. I hope people give you some help but only for the short term. I have had to ebeg myself back in 2008 when I lost everything but the clothes on my back. However the difference is I quickly laid out a plan on how to get back on my feet.

When I got sick in 2009 I quickly put together a plan to never be in that position again by enrolling in community college. I will be going back for more classes in January.

You need to form a game plan. You can not depend on Social Security. You hopefully should know that now. You need to lay out some goals and work towards those goals to achieve being self sufficient.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Final Thoughts on NephlilimFree

As of today I intend to be finished with NephilimFree. In 3 hours his BlogTalkRadio program will air and there will be plenty of people ready and willing to debate him. He will not be able to claim he was unprepared as he has left comments on my video announcing that we will be there. Quite the opposite, I expect we will be kicked out or ignored. During this time NephilimFree will go on and on about how nobody has the courage to debate him on BlogTalkRadio.

Here is the truth. For three years NephilimFree has been playing this game. Each time someone comes close to debating him, he sees to it that it never happens. This is so he can claim that he is undefeated. Just like his buddy ShockofGod can claim that no atheist has ever been able to answer "The Question." ShockofGod just blocks anybody who ever tries.

Shortly after I announced that we were coming to his BlogTalkRadio show to bring ownership to the internets, NephilimFree posted this video.

The timing of this post is highly dubious. NephilimFree is well known for his terms of debating someone. They must have as many subscribers as he has. This of course has changed from his past requirement, that the opponent must have over 1000 subs. As in the past NephilimFree has moved the goal posts again. Now the opponent must have 10,000 subscribers. See in NephilimFree's world subscriber count equals competence. Thus NephilimFree surely would hold someone like FRED in high regard

So why the change in heart? Why would NephilimFree drop all his standards and show a sudden willingness to debate Buruc who at the time of this post only has 269 subscribers. Something that you can change by the way by clicking here

For those who did not know, NephilimFree accepted this debate challenge 6 weeks after it was made. Six weeks. No joke. Upload date was on October 6th, and at that time as stated in the video Buruc was on NephilimFree's blocked list.

Notice he challenges NephilimFree to a video debate. NephilimFree in accepting this debate changed the forum without Buruc's consent. It was only when Buruc stuck to his guns that NephilimFree is now trying to label him as a coward. Shameful.

So the only conclusion is that NephilimFree is just not capable of defending his positions in an open forum. The only place he is willing to do so is on his BlogTalkRadio program where he has the sole ability to determine who talks and who doesn't. A place where all detractors can be kicked without warning. In 3 years that he has been on YouTube he has not been able to debate anyone. In 3 years he has not proven capable of having a debate.

The next person he challenges should remind him of this day. The day when the internet came to him, on his terms, and he still was not able to debate.

I leave you now with one final thought

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

ArchieWhambulance and the DMCA *sigh*

ArchieWhambulance has made many videos in the past where he makes himself look like an ass but even I have to admit he usually does not upload content this FacepalmWorthy. Well today he did. The Youtube partner who once told me that he does not just make videos about ShaneDawson or iJustine uploaded a video today with ShaneDawson right in the title, even though the video only briefly mentioned ShaneDawson.

ArchieWhambulance first off does not understand the difference between flagging and a DMCA as he used the terms interchangably. Archie, a flag is when someone hits the flag button and the video is reviewed by YouTube for terms of service violations. The video is screened via a thumbnail generator similar to the one you see in the video uploader. Thus they can review a video in a matter of seconds. A DMCA is when someone claims a copyright infringement on your video and youtube takes it down.

Now I would like to point out that this is the 3rd DMCA that RWJ has gotten that I know of. However, every video he has since gotten back. In my opinion RWJ is on the edge of the fair use defense and if he were ever taken to court I think he would lose. However as far as YouTube is concerned, they have to take down a video upon receipt of a DMCA claim, and they have to put it back up upon receipt of a counter-claim.

After that, it is up to the original claimant to file suit seeking financial damages. Based on how much money I make on a video, I can assume that RWJ makes a few thousand from each video. Thus someone could take him to small claims court if they wished.

However YouTube does not have in place a protection for their superstars. Failblog has been suspended 3 times for copyright violations. Failblog of course is clear cut copyright infringement, no fair use defense is even possible, but they have the money to have the good lawyers. Failblog is run by the same guys who run Icanhazacheezeburger and a slew of other popular websites.

Smosh was suspended back in 2008, Nigahiga was suspended for copyright, They do take down videos for copyright infringement even against the bigger superstars. Now it is much harder to file a DMCA than it used to be, and this is due to the abuse of the DMCA. Right now, when filing a DMCA you have to provide proof to youtube that the video is yours and you have to provide a URL to your video. Or otherwise prove that it came from you. Now this is not to say that false DMCA's dont get through. On the contrary, they still do. I routinely DMCA myself just to stay aware of the changes because people often contact me for help with the counter-notice.

Out of 3 DMCA's I filed against myself two were rejected. Only one was sucessful and I have since gotten my video re-instated. Will RWJ be able to get his video back. Yes, he did it before. All he has to do is claim fair use. Is his video fair use, no I do not think that it is, but that is not for me or you to decide. It is not even for youtube to decide. Fair use is a defense you can claim in court. If they do decide to take him to court, they should be able to get awarded a cut of the profits he made from the video.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Making Friends For Selfish Reasons

I fear that one of my instructors is going to be rather hesitant in giving me a passing grade if I do not make friends at school. Here is the problem I am having. I do not want to make friends. My whole life I have not been good at making friends and it has never been an issue before.

I have always worked hard on the job and in most of my jobs I have been given promotions and extra responsibility. One of the reasons I do my job well is because I don't spend much time socializing. When I am on the clock, I work and my employers see that and I am rewarded.

One job I had at Motorolla back 10 years ago I proved to be highly productive. While my peers were producing on average 9 units of product per shift, I was able to produce 10-12 units per shift. Furthermore, my scrap rate was far below everyone else's. One of the reasons I was able to be so productive is that I never used my full break time. I would just use the bathroom when needed and grab a quick bite to eat and I would be back at work.

My last job involved not only doing the telephones like everyone else, but I was also in charge of the fax machine and handling the out of county calls. Furthermore, I had to take supervisor calls because our supervisor was either out smoking or was asleep. Making friends was never an issue because it was never a requirement.

Well now here at school this is something that I am going to have to do. My question is this: Is is morally right to make a friend solely for a self-serving objective? I would only be making friends just to pass the class and I have no interest in continuing the friendship once the class ends. In otherwords, I would be using someone.

Ethically this is something that I would have a hard time doing. I am not sure if this is something I would even be capable of, and I don't think I would like myself very much if I were able to do it.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Atheists were never saved

Rough draft soon to be uploaded to youtube.

Were Atheists ever Christians?

This has been the hot topic lately on YouTube and as a former Christian myself I though I would give my thoughts on the matter. For those who are not aware there have been many videos lately made by Christian evangelists on YouTube dismissing the claims of former theists such as myself by saying we were never really a Christian. We were never really saved.

I have asked a few of them to back up their views with the Bible and a few have done so. I will be reading from the King James Version of the Bible and a link to read it for yourself on line is down below. I myself prefer reading from the New International Version but I will be using the King James Bible because that is the only bible many of these fundamentalists trust. Would I be wasting my time by doing a video on the King James Bible, leave a comment below.

One of the Bible verses quoted is Hebrews 6: starting with verse 4

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Now this passage has a few interpretations. The first interpretation is that once you turn your back on Christ there is no going back. Another one is focused on the word “impossible” and that those who have turned their back on God were never really saved to begin with.

Well let me give you what I was taught as a baptist fundamentalist. The first thing to remember is that dividing of scripture by chapter and verse was first introduced by the King James Bible translators. Prior to this, there was no division. Therefore you must remember to read passages in context even though they are divided by chapter and verse.

The second thing you must consider is who is the intended audience of the book of Hebrews. The intended audience is Jewish Christians who were struggling to abandon the old covenant and to embrace fully the new covenenat. Furthermore it should be noted that we have no idea who wrote the book of Hebrews. Despite the lack of a known author most Christians accept Hebrews as scripture.

When you read Hebrews 6 along with the end of chapter 5 you do come to a different conclusion about what this passage is about. Lets start with verse 12

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

So this passage shows the author’s frustration with the Jewish Christians not growing in their Christian faith.. The next chapter in verse 1 continues this point well

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

See the author is wanting the Jewish Christians for move away from works and more towards grace. Lets continue with verse 2

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

And this will we do, if God permit.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

So this passage is not talking about Christians who have fallen away. It is about Jewish Christians trying to gain salvation through keeping the law when Christ has paid for their sins on the Cross. It is all about context. No where else in this passage does it discuss those who have left the faith. Furthermore, any interpretation that this passage says that those who left the faith can never come back would clearly contradict Jesus’s message in the parable of the Prodigal son.

Another passage that has been quoted to me is 1 John 2:19 which reads

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I am honestly confused as to why this passage is used to say those who have left the Christian faith were never really saved. All you have to do is read verse 18 for context

This passage is not about those who left the faith but rather it is about false teachers and false prophets.

Mathew 7:21-23 is another passage they have quoted to me

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Again as before, read this in context look at verse 15

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

This is a warning about false prophets and false teachers. Not about those who left the Christian faith.

Now lets take a look at one last example. FranksVoice.

First I would like to acknowledge his video apology for the harsh things he said about TheWoodsofJordan a link to that apology is below.

In his video, Atheists were never saved, he defined Christians as those who had a relationship with Jesus. You can know the bible, attend church every weekend, and put money in the offering plate, but if you did not have a relationship with Jesus, then you were never really saved.

The problem with that logic is this. If you define a Christian as someone who has a relationship with Jesus then that would mean that Frank is not a Christian. See atheists do not believe in a god, we do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We do not believe that the holy spirit lives inside every believer. We do not believe there is a god in heaven listening to our prayers. We don’t believe because we don’t see any evidence that a god exists

Furthermore we don’t believe you have a relationship with Jesus. When you pray, you are just talking to yourself. Now, how can I explain answered prayers. Easy like this. Good things happen and bad things happen. Now when I went to church, my pastor taught us that when we pray, we should pray for specifics. Pray in such a way that only God could pull it off. We didn’t do the wishy washy type prayers, such as God if it is in your will, and if you are not too busy can you please aid the surgeoens hand and hopefully Louise will make it through her hand surgery ok.

No we prayed for miracles. Things such as God please heal Louise’s hand so she doesn’t need surgery. We didn’t treat god like a Genie or anything but we believed that god was all powerful and was able to great things. Now granted we never saw an amputee get healed but we did see some pretty cool things. Even myself I had a few of my prayers answered that at the time I concluded that only God could have done it. One such example was when I was a truck driver and I had driven for the company for a few years and I asked God to bless me with a new truck. Now the new trucks went out to the senior drivers. Yet I asked God to make it so the company would give one of the new trucks to me.

Well one day I was bringing my rig into the shop for maintaince when something went wrong and my truck needed some serious work. At the same time there was a load that had to get to Chicago and I was the only one available to do the trip. There was only one available truck. A new one. Thus the company assigned me the new rig and in about 20 mintues I moved my bags from the old one to the new one. At the time I concluded this was an answered prayer, but looking back, it just happened.

I could spend the next few hours listing off every answered prayer of mine, but in the end that would be a really boring video. I see no evidence for God and the answered prayers are just like the unanswered prayers. Life happens.

So was I a Christian, yes. Did I have a relationship with God? No, but that is because God is not real and therefore no Christian has a relationship with God.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

YouTube Surprise Maintenance mode

Back in the glory days of YouTube, they would tell you a few hours in advance that they were going into maintenance mode. This would allow content creators such as myself, the opportunity to postpone uploading a video. When in maintenance mode ratings and comments are disabled, and durring the first 48 hours that is important.

Now I am finding it all to common to upload a video only to find that shortly thereafter, ratings and comments are disabled due to a surprise maintenance session by YouTube.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

A new direction for balloon art

Hello there, welcome to my first ever blog posting on the website Blogger.

I have been inspired by a new friend on YouTube by the name of Brusspup. I would like to thank LaciGreen for sending him my way he is a delight to talk to. He has found a success on YouTube by uploading short videos of just pure awesome.

I have decided to try his approach and mix it in with a little MysteryGuitarMan as well. Upload something short and awesome and then follow it up with plugging my YouTube channel. Therefore I would like to present the first video in this new style

For those who enjoy my longer videos and my videos where I have long discussions, I want to assure you that I will continue doing them as I do enjoy making them. However if I am going to prosper in doing YouTube for a living, then I do need to work harder to build and maintain an audience.

I am not changing, I am not jumping the shark. Rather I look at this as simply adding a new element to my content. The Grimlock balloon cost about $15 or $20 dollars to make. Therefore I calculate that if this thing gets 10,000 views in two weeks then it will have paid for itself. Thus I can afford to do more.

All I need right now is your encouragement and your help in spreading the videos on different blogs, and twitter.