[videoblogging] Re: Question before posting

[Gena]

Well, I like the scratch and sniff test myself.

Just on what you described I have questions. There is a difference
between being a sales rep and a content producer. What are they asking
you to do?  If if just being a sales rep then why do you have to give
them money to sell their product/service?

If you are content producer what are you getting for your investment?
It has to be more than web hosting or is that the service you are
purchasing? You produce content and pay $$$ for what?

Are you being pressured to "do it now?" Cuz if you are then it ain't
about the possibilities but the reality of getting your money now. If
it is any good it will be here next month, six months from now or a
year. What's your hurry bub? 

Another thing I would do is put the company's name into Google and do
a search. See how many places they have posted this particular
opportunity and for how long. Are they spamming folks? Seeding
newsgroups and forums? Are they any unhappy campers that float to the
surface? If you comeback with a 1.5 million hits you or this
opportunity may not be as special as you thought.

I don't know if this is true for Australia but I would find out where
these folks are located and check the local Better Business Bureau. In
California I can go to the State Attorney's office and check out
current fraud alerts. 

I got more questions but I'm learning to cut myself off at three. 
Ok, it was six questions but it is a process. 

Be safe,

Gena
http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com
http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "bordercollieaustralianshepherd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello all. 
> 
> I ran across a company that is using network marketing to recruit reps
> and make sales. What I like most about this company is all the pieces
> are there for a video producer/blogger to build not only a following
> but earn income by branding their content. The company has a marketing
> plan that matches it's global reach. The cost seems high until you do
> the numbers. 
> 
> So my question before I figuratively hit myself in the forehead with a
> hammer is:
> Should I make this a "Contact me off list if you are interested" post?
> 
> I like Youtube. Blip.tv much more. Revver has revenue sharing. 
> I do NOT want to be spamming here. I really think this company has all
> of the potential that lacks in other's platforms and offerings.
> 
> Thank you for your opinion.
> Dave
>

[videoblogging] Question before posting

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

Hello all. 

I ran across a company that is using network marketing to recruit reps
and make sales. What I like most about this company is all the pieces
are there for a video producer/blogger to build not only a following
but earn income by branding their content. The company has a marketing
plan that matches it's global reach. The cost seems high until you do
the numbers. 

So my question before I figuratively hit myself in the forehead with a
hammer is:
Should I make this a "Contact me off list if you are interested" post?

I like Youtube. Blip.tv much more. Revver has revenue sharing. 
I do NOT want to be spamming here. I really think this company has all
of the potential that lacks in other's platforms and offerings.

Thank you for your opinion.
Dave

[videoblogging] The "N-Word" In A Video - Commentary

[thisiswar3005]

Hi All,

I made a video commentary on the use of the "N-Word."  It's here:

http://blip.tv/file/121813

Thanks and Happy Holidays,

Zennie

[videoblogging] mefeedia some changes

[Peter Van Dijck]

Hey all :)

We made some changes at the meef, mainly: you can now see who is
subscribed to a feed. Just go to the feed page and click "who is
subscribed". Some subscribers are listed multiple times, working on
that little bug :)

Also, for example this lists of PodTech feeds shows some new stuff to
our Lists feature:
http://mefeedia.com/lists/72/

Happy Xmas!
Peter

-- 
Find 1s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com
my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/
my job: http://petervandijck.net

[videoblogging] Re: Fun legal developments

[Bill Cammack]

I watch MotoGP from MotoGP.com.  They stream the video LIVE from wherever in 
the world 
they happen to be racing.  Normally that means I'm watching the race @ 8amEST.  
live.

Speed Channel (re)broadcasts the race either later that same day or days later. 
 MotoGP 
also archives the files.

Seeing the race live, as it happens, is an added value.  There's no reason why 
someone 
else should be able to provide live broadcasts by linking to a site where time, 
energy, 
money and connections were used to produce this live event.

On top of that, the article mentions several sponsors who pay to advertise on 
the site 
that's providing the live streamed event.  When someone bypasses that 
advertising, those 
sponsors aren't getting their money's worth.  What they paid for is still being 
seen, and 
they're not getting any benefit from that.  If companies can usurp feeds from 
other 
companies, there's no reason to sponsor anyone, because there's no guarantee 
that the 
site where your logs, etc are placed is going to be the site that people 
actually go to.

This is why they make that whole ".any re-broadcast . 
re-transmissionof this 
telecast.. without the expressed written consent of the New York Yankees is 
prohibited" 
announcement.  Otherwise, you'd be able to watch the Yankees games LIVE on any 
channel 
that decided to broadcast the live feed from the stadium.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't see how hot linking to a streaming video vs. a downloadable
> one makes much of a difference to the argument.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> On 12/26/06, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In Mike's blog post you can go read the article about this.  It says
> > in part:
> >
> > "U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas
> > granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated
> > Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live
> > audiocasts of motorcycle racing events."
> >
> > "The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas
> > company that is one of the largest producers of "Supercross"
> > motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that
> > fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of
> > sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked
> > on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of
> > companies that paid to be sponsors.)"
> >
> > It 's about direct linking to live streaming audio files, not a
> > hosted web video.
> >
> > Information Week has this:
> >
> > "SFX Motor Sports is dumb because they apparently failed (as TechDirt
> > correctly notes) to put in place any of the easy-to-implement
> > technologies that can be used to block links from specific external
> > sites. Davis is dumb for representing himself -- he apparently thinks
> > that calling the opposition names like Genghis Kahn is the height of
> > legal argument.
> >
> > And the judge's ruling is dumb because it extends copyright to an
> > instance where there were no actual copies made.
> >
> > And yet: What Davis did is wrong. He's a parasite, getting revenue
> > from the hard work of other people and giving nothing back.
> >
> > A better way to handle this would have been for SFX Motor Sports to
> > have put in place technology to block Davis's connections and then,
> > if necessary, sue Davis for circumventing them. "
> >
> > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/12/
> > plenty_of_dumb.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 26, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mike Hudack wrote:
> >
> > > Already blogged about:
> > >
> > > http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/
> > >
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM
> > >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > >> Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
> > >>
> > >> ...
> >
> > >> ***Judge deems direct linking, so called "hot linking" to
> > >> videos illegal***
> > >>
> > >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml
> > >>
> > >> Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as
> > >> should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a
> > >> blog.
> > >>
> > >> It's happy holiday hoots all around.
> > >>
> > >> -Mike
> > >> mmeiser.com/blog
> > >> mefeedia.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Garfield
> > http://SteveGarfield.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments

[Steve Garfield]

Live streaming broadcast.

That's the thing.

It's like if you streamed a broadcast of a weekend NFL game that's  
being broadcast on NBC.

On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Mike Meiser wrote:

> I don't see how hot linking to a streaming video vs. a downloadable
> one makes much of a difference to the argument.

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

[videoblogging] The queen of England's podcast

[Mike Meiser]

I think someone might have posted about this, but in case noone did.

I just added the queen of England's podcast to my list of politicians
who podcast.

http://mefeedia.com/lists/57/

It is only an audio podcast, not a video podcast.

It's also just a podcast of speaches, not a direct or personal
address, but still, it's pretty cool.

I couldn't find an actual corresponding blog like page, so here's the
page on mefeedia.

http://mefeedia.com/feeds/22360/

Only two speaches so far.

That makes one Chancellor of Germany (a video podcast), the queen of
england, the president of the united states (three podcasts, one video
podcast of his dog), and a bunch of senators and congressmen... even
some state and city government level politicians. Most of them audio
podcast, but a select few video podcast.

If you know any others let me know either here or by leaving a comment
on my list. I know I'm far from complete.

-Mike
mefeedia.com
mmeiser.com/blog

Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments

[Mike Meiser]

Thanks steve, I overlooked that take on it.

Well written, dumb times three. It reflects poorly on all involved.

I don't see how hot linking to a streaming video vs. a downloadable
one makes much of a difference to the argument.

-Mike

On 12/26/06, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Mike's blog post you can go read the article about this.  It says
> in part:
>
> "U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas
> granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated
> Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live
> audiocasts of motorcycle racing events."
>
> "The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas
> company that is one of the largest producers of "Supercross"
> motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that
> fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of
> sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked
> on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of
> companies that paid to be sponsors.)"
>
> It 's about direct linking to live streaming audio files, not a
> hosted web video.
>
> Information Week has this:
>
> "SFX Motor Sports is dumb because they apparently failed (as TechDirt
> correctly notes) to put in place any of the easy-to-implement
> technologies that can be used to block links from specific external
> sites. Davis is dumb for representing himself -- he apparently thinks
> that calling the opposition names like Genghis Kahn is the height of
> legal argument.
>
> And the judge's ruling is dumb because it extends copyright to an
> instance where there were no actual copies made.
>
> And yet: What Davis did is wrong. He's a parasite, getting revenue
> from the hard work of other people and giving nothing back.
>
> A better way to handle this would have been for SFX Motor Sports to
> have put in place technology to block Davis's connections and then,
> if necessary, sue Davis for circumventing them. "
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/12/
> plenty_of_dumb.html
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mike Hudack wrote:
>
> > Already blogged about:
> >
> > http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM
> >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
> >>
> >> ...
>
> >> ***Judge deems direct linking, so called "hot linking" to
> >> videos illegal***
> >>
> >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml
> >>
> >> Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as
> >> should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a
> >> blog.
> >>
> >> It's happy holiday hoots all around.
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >> mmeiser.com/blog
> >> mefeedia.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Steve Garfield
> http://SteveGarfield.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

RE: [videoblogging] "the UNHOLY" Arrives in 2007!

[Obreahny O'Brien]

I like how this melodramatic cliche of terrorist attacking New York city turns 
from a mental yawn into a verbal exclamation when you read further down to see 
that it's really just a guise for a horny adult production. I'm no publicist 
but maybe you could get right to the point with a tagline like this: "When the 
world is in peril, there's only one thing to do: Have An Orgy. . . (insert "da 
da dum" drum roll here) In the UNHOLY aka An attempt by VT Productions to 
make a quick buck off Online Porn. . .  "How's about that?To: [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:04:17 -0800Subject: 
[videoblogging] "the UNHOLY" Arrives in 2007!














  



Greetings Fellow Videobloggers,

After 6 years in production "the UNHOLY" will be arriving sometime in 2007. 
What is "the UNHOLY"?

the UNHOLY!

"With the United States of America on constant Terror Alert and the World 
teetering on the brink of total war.

A group of underground New York City, early 21st Century, Dominate and 
Submissive Fetish Adventurers conduct Wild Sadomasochistic Play Parties beneath 
the streets of Post 9-11, Pre-Apocalyptic Manhattan.

The World could end at any moment. What happens next is anyone's guess!" 

Thank You,

V.T.
Director
Commando 11
digital Motion Pictures
"to create and distribute movies, no matter what!"
THE BATTLE CONTINUES...ONLINE!

http://theunholy-movie.blogspot.com/

V.T.DirectorCommando 11digital Motion Pictures"to create and distribute movies, 
no matter what!"THE BATTLE 
CONTINUES...ONLINE!http://theunholy-movie.blogspot.com/
 __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


  













_
Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio powered by 
Pandora.
http://radio.msn.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments

[Steve Garfield]

In Mike's blog post you can go read the article about this.  It says  
in part:

"U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas  
granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated  
Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live  
audiocasts of motorcycle racing events."

"The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas  
company that is one of the largest producers of "Supercross"  
motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that  
fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of  
sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked  
on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of  
companies that paid to be sponsors.)"

It 's about direct linking to live streaming audio files, not a  
hosted web video.

Information Week has this:

"SFX Motor Sports is dumb because they apparently failed (as TechDirt  
correctly notes) to put in place any of the easy-to-implement  
technologies that can be used to block links from specific external  
sites. Davis is dumb for representing himself -- he apparently thinks  
that calling the opposition names like Genghis Kahn is the height of  
legal argument.

And the judge's ruling is dumb because it extends copyright to an  
instance where there were no actual copies made.

And yet: What Davis did is wrong. He's a parasite, getting revenue  
from the hard work of other people and giving nothing back.

A better way to handle this would have been for SFX Motor Sports to  
have put in place technology to block Davis's connections and then,  
if necessary, sue Davis for circumventing them. "

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/12/ 
plenty_of_dumb.html





On Dec 26, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mike Hudack wrote:

> Already blogged about:
>
> http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM
>> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
>>
>> ...

>> ***Judge deems direct linking, so called "hot linking" to
>> videos illegal***
>>
>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml
>>
>> Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as
>> should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a  
>> blog.
>>
>> It's happy holiday hoots all around.
>>
>> -Mike
>> mmeiser.com/blog
>> mefeedia.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

Re: [videoblogging] YouTube probs

[WWWhatsup]

>

Seems to be fixed now.


>I've been having difficulty uploading to YT today. 
>
>It continuously rejects the video description text. 
>
>I tried complaining through their email form, and it rejected that text too.
>
>:(
>
>joly
>

---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

[videoblogging] "the UNHOLY" Arrives in 2007!

[theUNHOLY Movie]

Greetings Fellow Videobloggers,

After 6 years in production "the UNHOLY" will be arriving sometime in 2007. 
What is "the UNHOLY"?

the UNHOLY!

"With the United States of America on constant Terror Alert and the World 
teetering on the brink of total war.

A group of underground New York City, early 21st Century, Dominate and 
Submissive Fetish Adventurers conduct Wild Sadomasochistic Play Parties beneath 
the streets of Post 9-11, Pre-Apocalyptic Manhattan.

The World could end at any moment. What happens next is anyone's guess!" 

Thank You,

V.T.
Director
Commando 11
digital Motion Pictures
"to create and distribute movies, no matter what!"
THE BATTLE CONTINUES...ONLINE!

http://theunholy-movie.blogspot.com/

V.T.DirectorCommando 11digital Motion Pictures"to create and distribute movies, 
no matter what!"THE BATTLE 
CONTINUES...ONLINE!http://theunholy-movie.blogspot.com/
 __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments

[Mike Meiser]

It is hysterical. It's contrary to not only to the very notion of
media, but also contrary to the current momentum of what's going on
web wide.

Not only are all the major video hosting sites encouraging linking and
especially embedding their videos in other webpages, but the business
models such as advertising are starting to endoctrinate and embrace
this model too.  The point being a view is a view... you can't stop
it, so why not put the add in the video and embrace and encourage it.

The rules of the changing despite what copyright says, because some of
the more extreme fringes of copyright is directly at odds with
fundamental properties of the digital real and the internet. Necessity
is not only the mother of innovation, but of change... and not even
law can stand against it.

Since we've begun video podcastin in 2004 the mediated web has gone
from one of scare online culture to a web of rich and diverse culture
of music and video and photos and mp3's.  General perceptions of
"giving it away for free" have nearly done a 180 in recent years.  I
remember when only a few years ago you were lucky as hell if you could
find a downloadable movie trailer... it was all WMV, Real or
nothing... now your movie doesn't exist unless you have atleast one
downloadable movie trailer... movie studios have learned to let go and
embrace the free sharing as a matter of marketing.  It's the same way
with mp3's and artists... and can you believe that in a time before
flickr people only used to share thumbnails of their images... where
now 90+% of flickrites allow you to download 4, 7 and even 11megapixel
photo originals.

Now we can laugh about this judge who thinks it's illegal to link
directly to videos, but when Lucas Gonze started webjay only a few
years ago he risked serious legal peril for hot linking to mp3's on
the open web.

If I'm proud of one thing it's that the media rich culture has in the
last 2 short years exploded.

Someone once said that we had to drag american culture out onto the
open web kicking and screaming... and we so have.

Five years ago height of popular culture was britney spears... now
it's dominated by the likes of youtube and other services... which
really is all about hundreds of thousands of people...

I think it's safe to say in only a few short years we've made the
cultural transition from a culture dominated by television and radio
to a culture dominated by the internet and with it a whole new
cornicopia of participatory culture has awakened.

Some people may point to television and radio and popular music and
say they haven't really slowed down... but who said they would?
Certainly not me... while we are transitioning away from such a
culture where television and radio dominate... the irony is they will
not shrink... in fact they will be free to grow.  It's not a zero sum
game... the market doesn't just move from one place to another, it
grows... why? The longer the tail the bigger the head... Because we're
in a culture of appreciation for one.People aren't born appreciating
design, or music, or hollywood movies... these are not instinctual...
they are not even necissary, they are aspects of participation and
appreciation of culture, just like art... the more participation the
more appreciation, the more growth...  This is why you don't find
world class fashion designers in small town america... they move with
the heard in new york or paris or elsewhere... because more
competition... more designers creates more appreciation for
design. We're all clothed... we don't need the gucci... yet still we
want the gucci... the why is the story of the future of all
intellectual property.

 And so it does with music and movies. Participation breeds appreciation.

Secondly, because the global marketplace believe it or not is not
totally saturated with american culture and technology... we've in
fact barely scratched the surface. 5-10 years ago there were people in
poverty in china than there were in the whole western world
combined... they have increasing buying power... I'm not saying
they're going to all rush out and buy american culture at all... in
fact I'm sure we'll do as much buying of chinese culture as they do
U.S. but it's such a hugely untapped market... and the same goes for
india, and africa and south america. Right now the U.S. consumes
something like 1/3 of the world's resources. That's changing.

In summary... the market for intellectuall propery is EXPLODING...
after years of being put on the shelf or more the couch millions of
consumers world wide are becoming creators... we are just at the very
very start of this future. The internet like the printing press...
like the discovery of the new world is a change which will take
centuries to play out. But it's going to create a cornicopia of
intellectual goods... of music, writing, ideas, innovation, and
culture.

Maybe it's just my christmas sentimentality, but it's just been an
amazing two years. To sit at the foot of this thing an

RE: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments

[Mike Hudack]

Already blogged about:

http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/12/26/direct-linking-to-videos-illegal/ 

> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:48 PM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Fun legal developments
> 
> Microsoft attempts to patent web based RSS aggregation.
> 
> http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6145636.html
> 
> I wrote about it here:
> http://mmeiser.com/blog/2006/12/microsoft-patents-web-based_26.html
> 
> Also...
> 
> ***Judge deems direct linking, so called "hot linking" to 
> videos illegal***
> 
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml
> 
> Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as 
> should yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog.
> 
> It's happy holiday hoots all around.
> 
> -Mike
> mmeiser.com/blog
> mefeedia.com
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

[videoblogging] Fun legal developments

[Mike Meiser]

Microsoft attempts to patent web based RSS aggregation.

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6145636.html

I wrote about it here:
http://mmeiser.com/blog/2006/12/microsoft-patents-web-based_26.html

Also...

***Judge deems direct linking, so called "hot linking" to videos illegal***

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/191554.shtml

Lucas Gonze of webjay should love the hot linking one... as should
yahoo and anyone with a video search engine, or who has a blog.

It's happy holiday hoots all around.

-Mike
mmeiser.com/blog
mefeedia.com

Re: [videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved

[Mike Meiser]

Good point, i'm not a quality mensch but there video quality is the
lowest I've seen.

-Mike

On 12/26/06, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One big thing that would help would be to use some compression settings that
> produced video that you could actually see and understand. That thing made
> YouTube look like HD.
> -Verdi
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[videoblogging] iHD [was: Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?]

[Joshua Paul]

Are you referring to ihd.org? If so, I visited the site and there's  
really a lack of information. For example, it's "a standards  
organization with members from Media, Advertising, and Technology."  
Who? There are no names attached.

Also, the iHD spec is:

-Shot in HD
-Edited in HD
-Aspect ratio: 16:9
-Video Bitrate: 2048 kbps
-Audio Bitrate: 192 kbps
-Framesize: 1280 x 720 progressive (non-interlaced)
-Formats: WMV, MP4

Just starting with "Shot in HD" doesn't provide a lot of technical  
details. What basic bitrate qualifies? What about color space? Or is  
it just dependent on resolution? Do framerates matter?

Also, why limit to WMV and MP4? If I can deliver audio-visual data  
that adheres to the rest of the spec, why can't I claim it to be iHD?  
Especially for an "open standard"? I would expect some type of  
embrace of Ogg. Or is this an attempt to crush Flash/On2 VP6?

Don't get me wrong, as I'm 100% for HD delivery via IP networks.

On a side note, I'm writing a blog post about why I think (broadcast)  
HD is going to rot on the vine.

--
joshpaul

On Dec 25, 2006, at 1:13 AM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Posted by: "andrew michael baron" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
> hamletphase
> Date: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:09 pm ((PST))
>
> On iHD and high bit rate files:
>
> One of the things that helped popularize Rocketboom initially was
> that I was one of the first to regularly distribute video content
> with enclosures.
>
> At the time, the audience (audio podcasters) was growing a great
> rate, but there was almost no video content to d/l.
>
> This was a first to market advantage for those of us that implemented
> the specs.
>
> I see the same thing occurring now for iHD. Maybe it wont take off in
> the same way, maybe it will do nothing for those that adopt such a
> file for distribution, though I believe there is a great chance that
> it will, if people also respond to the content.
>
> Have you met anyone with an HD TV? They often become obsessed and
> fanatical about the quality. Its as if they put on glasses for the
> first time in their lives and then become disappointed at anything  
> less.
>
> Our daily Rocketboom files are under 100mb and most people can play
> them right from the browser.
>
> Also, while 640x480 is also a good way to up the ante on your files
> for the upcoming iTV onslaught, iHD files can be in .mov format too,
> and thus look great on bigger screens of any kind, HD or not.

Re: [videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved

[Michael Verdi]

One big thing that would help would be to use some compression settings that
produced video that you could actually see and understand. That thing made
YouTube look like HD.
-Verdi


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved

[groups-yahoo-com]

LOL, Well put Verdi.

It's definitely a huge improvement. Atleast they've learned something
from the success of youtube.

It's atleast a video in a page, witha bookmarkable and referenceable
url, not a popout window, or some monolithic "rich media interface"

And they've used flash, which improves the experience.

Also, the video itself is pretty cool.  Just a guy talking to another guy.

Lost is any subscription mechanism... anyway, to say, "heh this is
cool I'd like to be notified about future pieces like this"... wait I
retract that they have an RSS feed of some sort

They also have a mechanism for bookmarking the video on NYtimes... so
you can find it again, that's cool.

Searchability and findability is greatly improved by the fact that it
is embeded in a page and their is atleast some accompanying meta
information.

Just about the only things I see are

1) they're missing is a downloadable, podcastable version of the
video. That's not actually that bad.

2) their RSS feeds are contain no enclosures, extremely sparse textual
discriptions of the videos, and no media RSS... pretty much not so
useful.

3) they fail to acknowlege or encourage embedding their videos in a
blog or linking to them directly.


Anyway, it's not great, but it's a thousand fold improvement from
recent history.

All in all... it's not something I'd ever bother to watch though.

-Mike
mmeiser.com/blog
mefeedia.com

On 12/26/06, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is amazing! Wow! The NY Times has caught up to where people in this
> group were in 2004!
>
> -Verdi
>
> On 12/26/06, contactmica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   A far cry from where they started earlier this year.
> > This one should not be missed:
> >
> >
> http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7&rf=bm
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://spinxpress.com
> http://freevlog.org
> Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[videoblogging] YouTube probs

[WWWhatsup]

>

I've been having difficulty uploading to YT today. 

It continuously rejects the video description text. 

I tried complaining thriugh their email form, and it rejected that text too.

:(

joly






---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

[videoblogging] Re: NYTimes videos have greatly improved

[francisco_daum]

This is good. I usually watch Pogue and the flash photo slide shows in
the NYT. Nice sharing. Once a condo gets built blocks from there, this
crack smoking, mildly schizophrenic homeless guy will surely get
evicted from his cave. Hooray for people who don't have addictions.

Francisco
franciscodaum.blogspot.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is amazing! Wow! The NY Times has caught up to where people in this
> group were in 2004!
> 
> -Verdi
> 
> On 12/26/06, contactmica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   A far cry from where they started earlier this year.
> > This one should not be missed:
> >
> >
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7&rf=bm
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://spinxpress.com
> http://freevlog.org
> Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved

[Michael Verdi]

That is amazing! Wow! The NY Times has caught up to where people in this
group were in 2004!

-Verdi

On 12/26/06, contactmica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   A far cry from where they started earlier this year.
> This one should not be missed:
>
> http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7&rf=bm
>
>  
>



-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] I hope someone can help

[Bev Sykes]

Thanks for all the feedback.  I'm on Windows XP and my son figured a
work-around for me; if I open QuickTime in Firefox, it plays fine.  Won't
play in Explorer, but I use Firefox as my browser anyway, so at least I can
still see the videos after I make them.

damn upgrades!  

On 12/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   When I last updated to QuickTime, it played everything back with a weird
> bluish cast to it. Absolutely awful video quality. It got better when I
> went into the QuickTime settings and told it not to use DirectX. You
> might want to try it.
>
> --
> Rhett.
> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
>
>
> > I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for
> > Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and
> > it
> > totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what
> I
> > had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or
> > I'm
> > up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod.
> >
> > The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my
> > computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or
> > QuickTime
> > video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but
> get
> > colors and wavy lines on the screen.
> >
> > I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when
> > this
> > first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure
> > out
> > where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted
> my
> > problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that
> > problem before.
> >
> > Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed.
> > Please?
> >
> > --
> > Bev Sykes
> > http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
> > http://funnytheworld.com
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Bev Sykes
http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
http://funnytheworld.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] NYTimes videos have greatly improved

[contactmica]

A far cry from where they started earlier this year.
This one should not be missed:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=7f5f12d1d283eab9a377567c6ee362b6cc76ceb7&rf=bm

Re: [videoblogging] Re: The Vlogging Xmas Video.

[CarLBanks]

That was awesome!

On 12/23/06, Mike Moon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Nicely done folks. Good job.
>
> Mike
> http://vlog.mikemoon.net
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> Paul Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Some of you may remember I asked for contributions last week for a
> > christmas carol, well it's ready fokes!!!
> >
> > http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions-AdesteFideles687.mov
> >
> > Another collaboration, a world singing in harmony.
> >
> > Paul Knight
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Want to help?

[Sanford Dickert]

All - 

Been spending time over the past ten days going through every site I listed
on politicalwarez.com and realized that there is almost no way to make this
up-to-date by myself.

BUT - instead of keeping it on my site, I moved it to Pbwiki and set up a
nmber of the pages with each section with it's own page.  You can see it at
http://socialmediaspace.pbwiki.com and the password if "socialmedia".

If you wish to update, add, contribute, whatever - please feel free.  I will
continue to add to it as I get more information - and if you want to
contribute, please add your name to the Contributors page.

Sanford

Re: [videoblogging] I hope someone can help

[wlight]

When I last updated to QuickTime, it played everything back with a weird
bluish cast to it.  Absolutely awful video quality.  It got better when I
went into the QuickTime settings and told it not to use DirectX.  You
might want to try it.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

> I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for
> Christmas.  Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and
> it
> totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I
> had.  Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or
> I'm
> up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod.
>
> The problem?  The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my
> computer.  Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or
> QuickTime
> video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage.  I hear the sound, but get
> colors and wavy lines on the screen.
>
> I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when
> this
> first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure
> out
> where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my
> problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that
> problem before.
>
> Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed.
> Please?
>
> --
> Bev Sykes
> http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
> http://funnytheworld.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] I hope someone can help

[Zack]

Reinstall Windows?

Bev Sykes wrote:
>
> I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for
> Christmas. Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes 
> and it
> totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I
> had. Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm
> up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod.
>
> The problem? The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my
> computer. Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or 
> QuickTime
> video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage. I hear the sound, but get
> colors and wavy lines on the screen.
>
> I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when 
> this
> first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to 
> figure out
> where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my
> problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that
> problem before.
>
> Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed.
> Please?
>
> -- 
> Bev Sykes
> http://funnytheblog .blogspot. com 
> http://funnytheworl d.com 
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

[videoblogging] Re: I hope someone can help

[Heath]

What are the specs on your computer?  Processer, operating system, 
etc?

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bev Sykes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've just discovered I can't even run the iTunes tutorials.  NO 
QuickTime
> video will run on my computer now.
> 
> On 12/26/06, Bev Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod 
for
> > Christmas.  Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of 
iTunes and it
> > totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back 
to what I
> > had.  Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of 
iTunes or I'm
> > up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod.
> >
> > The problem?  The latest version of QuickTime will not show 
videos on my
> > computer.  Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself 
or QuickTime
> > video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage.  I hear the 
sound, but get
> > colors and wavy lines on the screen.
> >
> > I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and 
when
> > this first happened several months ago (I went through hell 
trying to figure
> > out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling 
iTunes), I posted
> > my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard 
of that
> > problem before.
> >
> > Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to 
proceed.
> > Please?
> >
> > --
> > Bev Sykes
> > http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
> > http://funnytheworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bev Sykes
> http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
> http://funnytheworld.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: I hope someone can help

[Bev Sykes]

I've just discovered I can't even run the iTunes tutorials.  NO QuickTime
video will run on my computer now.

On 12/26/06, Bev Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for
> Christmas.  Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it
> totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I
> had.  Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm
> up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod.
>
> The problem?  The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my
> computer.  Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime
> video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage.  I hear the sound, but get
> colors and wavy lines on the screen.
>
> I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when
> this first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure
> out where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted
> my problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that
> problem before.
>
> Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed.
> Please?
>
> --
> Bev Sykes
> http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
> http://funnytheworld.com




-- 
Bev Sykes
http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
http://funnytheworld.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] I hope someone can help

[Bev Sykes]

I have joined the 21st century and Santa brought me a video iPod for
Christmas.  Some time ago, I upgraded to the latest version of iTunes and it
totally screwed up my system and I had to uninstall and go back to what I
had.  Now, it appears that I must have the current versiou of iTunes or I'm
up a creek as far as adding to my new iPod.

The problem?  The latest version of QuickTime will not show videos on my
computer.  Whether they are QuickTime videos I have made myself or QuickTime
video previews on iTunes, all I get is garbage.  I hear the sound, but get
colors and wavy lines on the screen.

I have not come across this in any troubleshooting guidelines and when this
first happened several months ago (I went through hell trying to figure out
where to find an older version of QT and uninstalling iTunes), I posted my
problem to the QuickTime yahoo group and nobody had ever heard of that
problem before.

Surely SOMEONE here has and can give me suggestions for how to proceed.
Please?

-- 
Bev Sykes
http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com
http://funnytheworld.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: HD vanity

[Bill Cammack]

It's interesting that you mention that.  A lot of groups are interested in 24p 
because it 
makes the video look more like film.  That's because you're changing the 
refresh rate and 
slowing it down to a film rate of 24 whole frames per second vs a television 
rate of 60 
interlaced fields per second.

Besides frame rate, a way to tell video from film is contrast, and with HD, 
contrast 
increases exponentially.  It's more like looking out a window at a football 
game than 
seeing 35mm shot at a football game and transferred to video.

I got to watch football games on HD over the Thanksgiving break, and you can 
really see 
every blade of grass.  I hadn't considered how television "sets" might have 
relied on the 
lack of resolution.  If you do a cooking show, for instance, you might have 
been able to get 
away with salt on the counter, because it wouldn't show up on the monitors or 
the tapes, 
but with HD, the smallest details have to be dealt with, or the end-user is 
actually going to 
see it in their homes.

--
Bill C.
http://ReelSolid.TV 

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan / The Faux Press" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As a result of what you describe, makeup and set building technology
> has shifted. They can't use the old sets with HD. One show I know
> tested HD side-by-side with 35mm a number of years back and decided to
> stick with 35mm because of those issues. Too much detail would break
> the fourth wall given their circumstances - 15-year-old sets.
> 
> Find the wall broken in any case with the makeup (at least the early
> makeup) jobs actors got. Very pancake. Very surreal faces.
> 
> It's a choice.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On 12/25/06, Mark Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can confirm the mesmerising power of the 42" plasma.  I have enough
> > ADD to make the watching of movies I've seen before problematic (even
> > ones I like).  With few exceptions, I just get fidgety.  For the past
> > few weeks, I've been watching movies I only have a passing interest
> > in, just because, well, holy crap, the lush detail.
> >
> > I am sort of hoping this is a honeymoon period and I'll get over it,
> > before I have to watch every movie in the Michael Bay/Jerry
> > Bruckheimer catalogue again, just to see exactly where Nicholas Cage's
> > hair ends and "movie magic" begins.
> >
> > That said, having seen, say, Chris Berman on NFL Primetime in HD, I'm
> > not sure I'd want an HD camera pointed at my mug.  It's rather
> > unforgiving, and unless Dove face-cream are going to make me a lushly
> > pampered spokes-bloke, I think it's back to, "he's got a great
> > face for radio."
> >
> > If HD cameras were cheaper, and I hadn' t splurged on a big telly, I'd
> > buy one...
> >
> > Mark Day
> >
> > http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/
> > http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/
> > http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
>

Re: [videoblogging] HD vanity

[Jan / The Faux Press]

As a result of what you describe, makeup and set building technology
has shifted. They can't use the old sets with HD. One show I know
tested HD side-by-side with 35mm a number of years back and decided to
stick with 35mm because of those issues. Too much detail would break
the fourth wall given their circumstances - 15-year-old sets.

Find the wall broken in any case with the makeup (at least the early
makeup) jobs actors got. Very pancake. Very surreal faces.

It's a choice.

Jan

On 12/25/06, Mark Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can confirm the mesmerising power of the 42" plasma.  I have enough
> ADD to make the watching of movies I've seen before problematic (even
> ones I like).  With few exceptions, I just get fidgety.  For the past
> few weeks, I've been watching movies I only have a passing interest
> in, just because, well, holy crap, the lush detail.
>
> I am sort of hoping this is a honeymoon period and I'll get over it,
> before I have to watch every movie in the Michael Bay/Jerry
> Bruckheimer catalogue again, just to see exactly where Nicholas Cage's
> hair ends and "movie magic" begins.
>
> That said, having seen, say, Chris Berman on NFL Primetime in HD, I'm
> not sure I'd want an HD camera pointed at my mug.  It's rather
> unforgiving, and unless Dove face-cream are going to make me a lushly
> pampered spokes-bloke, I think it's back to, "he's got a great
> face for radio."
>
> If HD cameras were cheaper, and I hadn' t splurged on a big telly, I'd
> buy one...
>
> Mark Day
>
> http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/
> http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/
> http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com

[videoblogging] Re: Starring Amanda Congdon

[wazman_au]

Sheez man, is recycled Monty Python the extent of your humour?

;-)

Waz



]--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Day" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Posted by: "Amanda Congdon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ctgirl812003
> 
> >YouTubers, in my opinion, are independent media makers� so they 
fall
> >into the "us" catagory. MySpace, as I believe Dave Winer once put 
it,
> >is a blog on training wheels. I am not trying to say that they do 
not
> >count. They do! They are part of all this as well!
> 
> The People's Front of Judea appreciate that clarification in what 
we
> consider to be a fairly provocative post, and look forward to the 
blog
> entry which is to follow.
> 
> As long as our YouTubeWayArmy and MySpaceCadets are "in", we're 
golden.
> 
> At the same time, let's not overlook the fact that the Judean 
People's
> Front are, in fact, splitters. And thus, out.
> 
> All the best to you and yours at this special time of year,
> 
> B. Cohen (Nazareth) Esq.
> 
> http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/
> http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/
> http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy
> 
> The war on Christmas is, in fact, a war on Birthdays (for Parody
> Purposes Only) :
> 
> http://blip.tv/file/117202
>

[videoblogging] Re: Starring Amanda Congdon

[wazman_au]

Sheez man, is recycled Monty Python the extent of your humour?

;-)

Waz



]--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Day" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Posted by: "Amanda Congdon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ctgirl812003
> 
> >YouTubers, in my opinion, are independent media makers� so they 
fall
> >into the "us" catagory. MySpace, as I believe Dave Winer once put 
it,
> >is a blog on training wheels. I am not trying to say that they do 
not
> >count. They do! They are part of all this as well!
> 
> The People's Front of Judea appreciate that clarification in what 
we
> consider to be a fairly provocative post, and look forward to the 
blog
> entry which is to follow.
> 
> As long as our YouTubeWayArmy and MySpaceCadets are "in", we're 
golden.
> 
> At the same time, let's not overlook the fact that the Judean 
People's
> Front are, in fact, splitters. And thus, out.
> 
> All the best to you and yours at this special time of year,
> 
> B. Cohen (Nazareth) Esq.
> 
> http://videotheplanet.wordpress.com/
> http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv/
> http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy
> 
> The war on Christmas is, in fact, a war on Birthdays (for Parody
> Purposes Only) :
> 
> http://blip.tv/file/117202
>