Page 1 of 4

youtube

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:51 am
by SR
Is it fucked up? I can't paste the URL's. :noclue:

Re: youtube

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:57 am
by Warped
You only have to insert the no. of the video between the [youtube][/youtube] - then it works.

Re: youtube

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:10 am
by SR
:noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!

Re: youtube

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:42 pm
by Hype
SR wrote::noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!
Instead of pasting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
You only need:
2aPOMUTr1qw


Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:18 am
by Kajicat
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
SR wrote::noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!
Instead of pasting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
You only need:
2aPOMUTr1qw

Excellent choice in a video to use as an example! I own several Bertrand Russell books. Love that guy!

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:28 pm
by Hype
Kajicat wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
SR wrote::noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!
Instead of pasting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
You only need:
2aPOMUTr1qw

Excellent choice in a video to use as an example! I own several Bertrand Russell books. Love that guy!
He was a lot like Richard Dawkins, in that he was an absolute genius in his field (logic and the foundations of arithmetic -- the dude wrote the second best Principia, after Newton's) who branched out into public intellectual territory, and got FLAMED for it. People thought he was an asshole/monster because of his opennness about his lack of religious belief, and belief that it's dangerous.

I've always thought it was kind of funny how badly treated Dawkins is by my fellow philosophers, just because his book wasn't super-hardcore rigourous like the shit we all write normally is. The seem to forget that Russell's potboilers/books for general consumption were like that too. (Religion and Science is a good one, as is his History of Western Philosophy, and the collection of essays in Why I'm Not A Christian, and a few others. The guy was publishing for, I think, 70-something years... so there are a lot). They're not, in themselves, philosophy, but I think they are beneficial, since most people wouldn't read thoughts about those things if they were written the way philosophers normally write.

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:32 pm
by Kajicat
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Kajicat wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
SR wrote::noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!
Instead of pasting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
You only need:
2aPOMUTr1qw

Excellent choice in a video to use as an example! I own several Bertrand Russell books. Love that guy!
He was a lot like Richard Dawkins, in that he was an absolute genius in his field (logic and the foundations of arithmetic -- the dude wrote the second best Principia, after Newton's) who branched out into public intellectual territory, and got FLAMED for it. People thought he was an asshole/monster because of his opennness about his lack of religious belief, and belief that it's dangerous.

I've always thought it was kind of funny how badly treated Dawkins is by my fellow philosophers, just because his book wasn't super-hardcore rigourous like the shit we all write normally is. The seem to forget that Russell's potboilers/books for general consumption were like that too. (Religion and Science is a good one, as is his History of Western Philosophy, and the collection of essays in Why I'm Not A Christian, and a few others. The guy was publishing for, I think, 70-something years... so there are a lot). They're not, in themselves, philosophy, but I think they are beneficial, since most people wouldn't read thoughts about those things if they were written the way philosophers normally write.
You mentioned both of the books I own by Russell: Why I Am Not a Christian and Religion and Science. Both good reads. I agree that it is too bad about Dawkins, who is really put into a negative light these days. My buddy is almost finished with his PhD in philosophy and when I asked him about Dawkins' The God Delusion, he said it was rubbish and started really hammering down on Dawkins. Said buddy is Agnostic, but told me Dawkins gives Atheists a bad name.

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:06 pm
by Hype
Kajicat wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Kajicat wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
SR wrote::noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!
Instead of pasting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
You only need:
2aPOMUTr1qw

Excellent choice in a video to use as an example! I own several Bertrand Russell books. Love that guy!
He was a lot like Richard Dawkins, in that he was an absolute genius in his field (logic and the foundations of arithmetic -- the dude wrote the second best Principia, after Newton's) who branched out into public intellectual territory, and got FLAMED for it. People thought he was an asshole/monster because of his opennness about his lack of religious belief, and belief that it's dangerous.

I've always thought it was kind of funny how badly treated Dawkins is by my fellow philosophers, just because his book wasn't super-hardcore rigourous like the shit we all write normally is. The seem to forget that Russell's potboilers/books for general consumption were like that too. (Religion and Science is a good one, as is his History of Western Philosophy, and the collection of essays in Why I'm Not A Christian, and a few others. The guy was publishing for, I think, 70-something years... so there are a lot). They're not, in themselves, philosophy, but I think they are beneficial, since most people wouldn't read thoughts about those things if they were written the way philosophers normally write.
You mentioned both of the books I own by Russell: Why I Am Not a Christian and Religion and Science. Both good reads. I agree that it is too bad about Dawkins, who is really put into a negative light these days. My buddy is almost finished with his PhD in philosophy and when I asked him about Dawkins' The God Delusion, he said it was rubbish and started really hammering down on Dawkins. Said buddy is Agnostic, but told me Dawkins gives Atheists a bad name.
I like a lot of what he says in Religion and Science.

What your buddy said is common. That's why I said it. It doesn't make any sense to say that an atheist gives other atheists a bad name. As if somehow publishing a book with lay-person oriented arguments for why you ought not to believe something somehow damages the value of actually seeing why theistic arguments fail (that's all atheism is, ultimately... the rejection of any particular argument for the existence of God.) Some people claim to have "been atheists", but generally they are confused. One weird phenomenon that has resulted from Dawkins' book is that a lot of people are now saying that they are atheists, and have learned to trot out logical fallacies with which to accost their religious friends and family. This may be a valid criticism of the way that Dawkins' book is read, and it may be the case that he encouraged this kind of naive antagonistic view... But I don't think he actually ever said anything like that and it's kind of ridiculous to blame an author because a bunch of idiots read the book and got confused.

Re: youtube

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:53 pm
by Kajicat
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Kajicat wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Kajicat wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
SR wrote::noclue: The number? And yes, I'm a moron in some areas. :nod: Thanks!
Instead of pasting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw
You only need:
2aPOMUTr1qw

Excellent choice in a video to use as an example! I own several Bertrand Russell books. Love that guy!
He was a lot like Richard Dawkins, in that he was an absolute genius in his field (logic and the foundations of arithmetic -- the dude wrote the second best Principia, after Newton's) who branched out into public intellectual territory, and got FLAMED for it. People thought he was an asshole/monster because of his opennness about his lack of religious belief, and belief that it's dangerous.

I've always thought it was kind of funny how badly treated Dawkins is by my fellow philosophers, just because his book wasn't super-hardcore rigourous like the shit we all write normally is. The seem to forget that Russell's potboilers/books for general consumption were like that too. (Religion and Science is a good one, as is his History of Western Philosophy, and the collection of essays in Why I'm Not A Christian, and a few others. The guy was publishing for, I think, 70-something years... so there are a lot). They're not, in themselves, philosophy, but I think they are beneficial, since most people wouldn't read thoughts about those things if they were written the way philosophers normally write.
You mentioned both of the books I own by Russell: Why I Am Not a Christian and Religion and Science. Both good reads. I agree that it is too bad about Dawkins, who is really put into a negative light these days. My buddy is almost finished with his PhD in philosophy and when I asked him about Dawkins' The God Delusion, he said it was rubbish and started really hammering down on Dawkins. Said buddy is Agnostic, but told me Dawkins gives Atheists a bad name.
I like a lot of what he says in Religion and Science.

What your buddy said is common. That's why I said it. It doesn't make any sense to say that an atheist gives other atheists a bad name. As if somehow publishing a book with lay-person oriented arguments for why you ought not to believe something somehow damages the value of actually seeing why theistic arguments fail (that's all atheism is, ultimately... the rejection of any particular argument for the existence of God.) Some people claim to have "been atheists", but generally they are confused. One weird phenomenon that has resulted from Dawkins' book is that a lot of people are now saying that they are atheists, and have learned to trot out logical fallacies with which to accost their religious friends and family. This may be a valid criticism of the way that Dawkins' book is read, and it may be the case that he encouraged this kind of naive antagonistic view... But I don't think he actually ever said anything like that and it's kind of ridiculous to blame an author because a bunch of idiots read the book and got confused.
Yeah, Atheists are just as bad as religious folk imo. I'm Agnostic. Seems like the most logical thing to be as far as I'm concerned.

Re: youtube

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:23 pm
by kv
Yeah, Atheists are just as bad as religious folk imo.
see i don't get that...i would consider myself atheist...i mean in my view there is nothing...only diff between the two is one saying "i think there is nothing" and the other saying "i don't know" which to me is strange because nobody fucking knows..i don't know but still think there is nothing imho..i don't see a big difference....if anything it comes across that agnostics judge more...and atheists just don't care...now i know that's my general view and there are people on all sides to the extreme and pushing their views...for me i don't believe in anything except we are star dust and when I die "I" stop existing..and i don't care what anyone else thinks...if it was up to me i would want to believe in an after life but my mind has never bought into it :noclue:

Re: youtube

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:24 pm
by Hype
All stupid people are bad. That's what being stupid is.

However, I will say this: I am an atheist, if by 'God' you mean anything supernatural. My reasons are fairly straightforward. I take it to be a contradiction in terms to say that anything exists outside of Nature. (By 'Nature' I understand an absolutely infinite existing thing...)

That's a gloss, but it's a sound enough reason to reject anyone's claims to believe in any being that violates the laws of nature or has features that are self-contradictory, which is enough to rule out most folk-conceptions of the Abrahamic, Hindu, etc., Gods.

Re: youtube

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:28 pm
by kv
/golfclap on the complete thread jack, section jack btw

Re: youtube

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:10 pm
by Hype
What's a golfclap? :drink:

Re: youtube

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:31 pm
by kv

Re: youtube

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:11 pm
by Matz
I can't get these type of codes to work no matter what I do. What do you copy and paste in a situation like this?

.youtube.com/watch?v=8HHJBeqWzlk&feature=related

Re: youtube

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:15 pm
by Hokahey
Matz wrote:I can't get these type of codes to work no matter what I do. What do you copy and paste in a situation like this?

.youtube.com/watch?v=8HHJBeqWzlk&feature=related



8HHJBeqWzlk

Re: youtube

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:22 pm
by chaos
Matz wrote:I can't get these type of codes to work no matter what I do. What do you copy and paste in a situation like this?

.youtube.com/watch?v=8HHJBeqWzlk&feature=related
Take out 8HHJBeqWzlk and surround it with the img code.

Another way - Hit the share button on youtube under the video This is what appears: http://youtu.be/8HHJBeqWzlk
Take 8HHJBeqWzlk and surround it with the image code.


Re: youtube

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:44 pm
by Matz
ah, of course! thanks :bigrin:

Re: youtube

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:14 pm
by sonny
these guys don't have a fucking clue on this stuff. you should be able just post a URL between the youtube code and bam, there it is.

Re: youtube

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:29 pm
by creep
sonny wrote:these guys don't have a fucking clue on this stuff. you should be able just post a URL between the youtube code and bam, there it is.
we know enough not to throw a fit and delete the board. that seems more important than the youtube thing.

Re: youtube

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:30 pm
by sonny
creep wrote:
sonny wrote:these guys don't have a fucking clue on this stuff. you should be able just post a URL between the youtube code and bam, there it is.
we know enough not to throw a fit and delete the board. that seems more important than the youtube thing.
you throw a fit and delete my posts. is there a difference?

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:15 am
by kv
hey ladies can we relax?


cool...it's the internet still...everyone chill

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:48 pm
by Hokahey
:lol:

Jeez. This reminds me of when Hype would view my source code and complain about unnecessary code.

Sonny takes all of this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. Grow the fuck up. By the way, werent we supposed to have crashed and burned by now?

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:18 pm
by Hype
hokahey wrote::lol:

Jeez. This reminds me of when Hype would view my source code and complain about unnecessary code.

Sonny takes all of this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. Grow the fuck up. By the way, werent we supposed to have crashed and burned by now?
Hey wait a minute... that's still true... you shouldn't have been using Frontpage! It looks like this: http://www.homerswebpage.com/

Re: youtube

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:53 pm
by Hokahey
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
hokahey wrote::lol:

Jeez. This reminds me of when Hype would view my source code and complain about unnecessary code.

Sonny takes all of this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. Grow the fuck up. By the way, werent we supposed to have crashed and burned by now?
Hey wait a minute... that's still true... you shouldn't have been using Frontpage! It looks like this: http://www.homerswebpage.com/

Awesome.