Here's an experiment anybody can do in a matter of minutes.

1. Create a youtube account, or a second if you already have one. I advise creating a second one because after you do this experiment the account is likely to be deleted, permanently, by youtube.

2. Go to one of <AJ's> videos.

3. Flag it as inappropriate.

4. Stay on the page, refreshing as time goes by.

5. Watch how <AJ's> video is not pulled or suspended.

As I already explained- in detail- some idiot cannot get someone's video suspended or pulled for no reason.

Only a big media company can get a video pulled instantly, and automatically, with this method, and that's because all their legal information with proof of ownership is on file with youtube. And in these cases, the video will only ever be instantly pulled for copyright violation.

In ALL OTHER CASES-

A youtube employee will look at the flagged video BEFORE it is suspended or pulled.

If the video does not violate community standards (normally, only female full frontal nudity is pulled), then no action is taken against the video.

However, the person who flagged the video for no reason will normally have his account permanently deleted by youtube.

Youtube does this to prevent frivolous terms of use flags.

There is nothing in any of <AJ's> videos that violates community standards, or copyright for that matter.

Therefore- contrary to AJ's claim, none of his videos was ever suspended or pulled because somebody flagged it.

Period. Never happened.

Black hearted liar.

<AJ> why not post the email you got threatening to kill your daughters? You splashed that accusation all over the website, including on the administrator's forum.

You were asked on numerous occasions to supply any kind of evidence for this spectacularly ghoulish lie- involving your own children in a bid for public sympathy. You have never supplied this proof. Why not? If you're going to shove the accusation right in the admins' face, why not just paste the actual email, and forward it (with date stamp and EXIF data) to Daniel?

Would you like me to ask Daniel if you ever did this, and then post his answer for you in my forum? I'd be more than happy to do that, you degenerate liar.

Of course, you never did anything of the sort. Because the email doesn't exist.

You sir are a despicable, and proven, liar.

Case closed and I'm done with it- and you- forever.

LIAR.

Anyone who has any doubt as to <AJ> lying about his videos having been pulled or suspended, just do the experiment as I explained how to do above.

<Me too. But I was merely trying to treat AJ like a human being. Not a crime, is it?>

No, it is not a crime. It may even be admirable. It is not, however, likely to make any difference.

I'm not even sure I wanted to make a difference. It might have been a welcome development, but it wasn't a primary goal.

Now, still wearing these improbable judicial robes, I havta ask you to refrain from phrases like "Black hearted liar". Remember what happened with Mrs Thatcher's unattested middle name, eh?

You can call *me* a black hearted liar whenever you wish, of course. It may even be true. I haven't seen my innards lately, but there are many accumulations of cancerous tars in there.

Violent expressions of opinion are always welcome, even more so if elegantly or originally expressed.

That is such a nice way of phrasing it.

"Why, yes, Holmes" said Watson. "But didn't you throw him off Viagra Falls? Could he have survived?"

"No, Watson, he has nothing to do with it. But he reminded me that I needed to replenish my opium supply, so I paid a visit to Limehouse last night. Chinatown, you know."

"That's fearfully dangerous, Holmes. If you simply want Morphia, I'll write you a prescription, you know."

"Thanks, old fellow", said Holmes. "I prefer the Chinese stuff, and one picks up such useful snippets of information. You know that the Chinese have been investing heavily in America? Well, it seems they bought Pensacola."

"Is that one of those dreadful sugary drinks, Holmes? They rot the teeth, you know."

"No, Watson. It's a small city in Florida. It means that Mr Goldsby is getting a different internet from everyone else. Hence the obvious disparities in the various accounts."

"Brilliant, Holmes", said Watson. "So the case is closed, then? Shall I forward Mr Goldsby's fee to the usual charity?"

Just a long shot.My gun is aging like everything else.

And <Dom> nothing wrong with drugs and women.At least not last time I looked.In the 80ies.AC.

The speaker in the Pynchon quote ("What's wrong with drugs and women?") is an old Russian black-marketeer, Semyavin, in Switzerland. He is grumbling that the traditional commodities of his business, drugs and women, are being undermined by this 'new' product, information.

The year is 1945, and suddenly everyone is asking for 'information'.

My late father, Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi, invested widely in many countries. He recently met the President of FIDE, the world chess body. Seeing it as an ideal gift for his favorite daughter, he bought this FIDE thing from a guy named Kirsan for $5 million.

He has now left it to me in his will, along with Pensacola, Scotland, and the Inner Mongolian fishing fleet. It will take time for the will to be enacted and pass probate. In the meantime anyone who wants a GM title can have one for 1000 of your bucks.

No chessbucks, pls.

First, I want you to understand this. Frogspawn is *here for you*, and in a much more literal sense than the phrase usually applies. You assisted at the birth. Frogspawn exists so that you may enjoy your daily Frogspawn, or not.

And I won't ever let you down. Well, not on purpose. I have a bad habit of letting people down by accident, but that's different.

You asked me not to mention you in connection with Mr G., so I didn't. For old times sake, and friendship, and should old Aquinas be forgot, and so on. But then you returned to the subject yourself. And a tad stridently, if I may say so.

Is it the anger thing? Is it *only* the anger thing? It's unusual to heap such calumny and vituperation on somebody for getting his facts wrong (and it sounds to me as though even that wasn't necessarily AJ's fault, as he got the dodgy info from one of those dodgy emails).

Is the Lemming involved in any way? Because I will have him transformed overnight into beetle'n'bug flavoured dogfood if he harms you.

That's it, really.

This is simply not true! I went to someone who has uploaded hundreds and hundreds of items, and had many! items deleted ... I considered him an expert (sort of) ... certainly more knowledgable about the subject than I.

I have watched lots of vids on YT, but I have only uploaded three ... so my point was that I am (comparably) a novice ... and I asked someone who spends just about all of his free time on that site ...

<Dom> Thank you for continuing to be nice to me. I will try to "tone it down a bit" when I am in your forum ... I am really NOT trying to offend anyone ... although I am getting tired of the perpetual assaults ... and when people make so many false statements.

Potentially, some chess video's could be flagged ... if the person using the music (in the background) has not obtained the proper copyright releases, then these could be flagged as well.

As <jess> knows well from our private conversations over the years, I have lots of rules. Here are three:

1. Your friends are your friends;

2. You should let your friends be your friends;

3. You should always know who your friends are.

I was responding to <AJ> naming me (by name!) in his last bit of pathetic slander and mendacity in here. If you host him and he directs slander at me I may or may not respond.

You may or may not delete or respond, it's your forum that's up to you.

I didn't mention you in that post to <AJ>. As far as I'm concerned, you are not involved in anything to do with me and <AJ>.

You involved yourself initially by publicly asking me, on <AJ's> behalf, what I thought about something to do with <AJ>.

Don't do that.

<Mark Finan> is not involved in anything to do with my posts in this or any other forum.

I'll give you one piece of advice about him though, and it will be the first and last:

Stop mentioning his name in absentia. You gain nothing by it, and if anything it will only serve to make him angrier.

I don't believe any of his charges about you are true, and I'm sure nobody else does either.

But if you want him to stop attacking you, stop mentioning him.

"You should let your friends be your friends" could mean:

(a) You should allow your friends to act in a friendly manner

(b) You should not try to change your friends, eg by making demands of them

(c) What is, is.

Of course, these may all amount to the same thing. Or people may have internalized different concepts of friendship. That can be awkward.

I felt (non-Vulcan mode speaking here) that it might help to remind one of my friends that she is very special and that Frogspawn is here for her. Literally.

I may even have squeezed in a few subtexts. I have an infestation of the varmints just now - almost as bad as lemmings, they are.

Those are my rules and reflect a certain Tao-ist sensibility with a side order of Zen. Hence, the ambiguity is intentional. It leaves room for various interpretations--all of which are correct.

The <exclamation mark> - aka 'screamer', 'exclam' or 'bang' - has no place in civilized prose. Chess players and writers tend to use it more than average, because they're used to using it in annotations.

Language doesn't work the same way.
<This is simply not true!> does *not* mean "this is simply not true - so much that I'm highlighting the brilliancy of the untruth".

It means that the speaker sounds unhinged. Let the words do the talking and keep the screamers for chess moves.

I was looking, earlier, at one of your old annotated games -- Sokolov-Aronian, olympiad 2006, Nimzo-Indian, 0-1 in 19. The annotations were very good. The words sound like you've spent too much time pointing out things (very obvious things!) to young children. Which has made (great!) demands on your patience and spilled over into your style.

Since neither of us is a YT expert I'm gonna pass on that topic. But I think you were misinformed, to some degree, about their routines.

Of course, YT is now so unimaginably vast that it isn't run by humans anymore, not like comfy old CG. It probably has specialist search engines to *police* the regular engines that scan content for illegal flesh and copyright infringement.

I'll try not to be offended by the mention of 'other friends'. There are many people that I try to be civil towards. There are few friends, which kinda cuts against the social trending pattern. And I seem to fall out with the few there are.

Never mind.

Howard - the Zen Master, not the Duck - was right.

Though the Duck had a point when he said that humans just quacked him up.

http://youtu.be/4Kh_D9gvoaI

I missed this bit of Bobness when it came out: I didn't approve of him finding religion. Now, I don't mind that at all ... but his professed belief that he can count on the object of the song 'never to change' reveals a staggering lack of psychological insight.

I vacillated a bit, examined both sides of the argument, and decided to chop it.