ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Gentlemen and Ladies of the Perl/CPAN Community,

I sincerely need your help, right now, ASAP.

I was a registered developer with YouTube, and they've BLACKLISTED me for
flagging videos in the areas of "hot babes," "foot fetish" and "bondage
tickling."

If you would be so very sensitive and thoughtful as to experiment with my
YouTube Development Interface (YTDI), called WWW::YouTube, I would greatly
appreciate your immediate efforts. And I'll be readily available to help
get you started hitting YouTube with a reality check of a world-wide
collective effort against Pornography and Obscenity in the public domain.

I developed the WWW::YouTube interface to protect children, and YouTube
seems to have a problem with that simple concept, so I'm looking for anyone
who'll help me put some political pressure upon YouTube, to protect
children, teenagers and the General Public.

Please email me at ermeyers@adelphia.net if you have any questions or
problems setting thing up. Immediate portability fixes will be made
available to you, ASAP.

Thanks,

Eric

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> greatly appreciate your immediate efforts. And I'll be readily
> available to help get you started hitting YouTube with a reality check
> of a world-wide collective effort against Pornography and Obscenity in
> the public domain.

You mean back to the time young people were ignorant, and got pregnant
because they had no clue what's going on? Your "effort" is a crusade, and
hopefully will fail.


--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> greatly appreciate your immediate efforts. And I'll be readily
>> available to help get you started hitting YouTube with a reality check
>> of a world-wide collective effort against Pornography and Obscenity in
>> the public domain.
>
> You mean back to the time young people were ignorant, and got pregnant
> because they had no clue what's going on? Your "effort" is a crusade, and
> hopefully will fail.
>
>

No. I mean back to the time, just a few years ago, when people couldn't put
personal stuff like this in the public domain.

this guy
this girl

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:

> Gentlemen and Ladies of the Perl/CPAN Community,
>
> I sincerely need your help, right now, ASAP.
>
> I was a registered developer with YouTube, and they've BLACKLISTED me for
> flagging videos in the areas of "hot babes," "foot fetish" and "bondage
> tickling."
>
> If you would be so very sensitive and thoughtful as to experiment with my
> YouTube Development Interface (YTDI), called WWW::YouTube, I would greatly
> appreciate your immediate efforts. And I'll be readily available to help
> get you started hitting YouTube with a reality check of a world-wide
> collective effort against Pornography and Obscenity in the public domain.
>
> I developed the WWW::YouTube interface to protect children, and YouTube
> seems to have a problem with that simple concept, so I'm looking for
> anyone who'll help me put some political pressure upon YouTube, to protect
> children, teenagers and the General Public.
>
> Please email me at ermeyers@adelphia.net if you have any questions or
> problems setting thing up. Immediate portability fixes will be made
> available to you, ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric

Update. YouTube reinstated my account today.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric R Meyers writes:

Eric> No. I mean back to the time, just a few years ago, when people couldn't put
Eric> personal stuff like this in the public domain.

[urls deleted, which I didn't watch]

Uh, when was that, exactly, in your fictional alternate timeline?

As far as I can tell, except for a few restrictions about copyright
violations, libelous content and child pornography, there are really no
restrictions on the content you might find on *any* URL, and there never have
been, at least in the US.

So, what color is the sky on your planet?

print "Just another Perl hacker,"; # the original
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095

Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric R Meyers writes:
>
> Eric> No. I mean back to the time, just a few years ago, when people
> couldn't put Eric> personal stuff like this in the public domain.
>
> [urls deleted, which I didn't watch]
>
> Uh, when was that, exactly, in your fictional alternate timeline?
>
1 min = 60 sec
1 hr = 60 min
1 day = 24 hr
....

> As far as I can tell, except for a few restrictions about copyright
> violations, libelous content and child pornography, there are really no
> restrictions on the content you might find on *any* URL, and there never
> have been, at least in the US.

There are "real" restrictions made readily available to us, and "real" and
already well established standards. There are "real" and well stated Terms
of Use, or Terms of Service, on most internet websites, at least in the US.

>
> So, what color is the sky on your planet?

Mostly blue I'd say, during the day, but mostly black at night. But if I
went way up on the planet, or way down on the planet, the sky is sometimes
always blue, because the really big yellow thing that we call the Sun
doesn't go down below the horizon for quite some time, or sometimes always
black, because the really big yellow thing doesn't show up for a while.

>
> print "Just another Perl hacker,"; # the original

You didn't watch? : ( Typical antagonist.

* P : Pornography or Obscenity
* I : Illegal Acts
* G : Graphic Violence
* R : Racially or Ethnically Offensive Content

This is not a "fictional" witch hunt or a zealous "crusade," it is simply
about getting some responsible adults to watch, and find out what is out
there for anyone to see, including children.

I've found that places like YouTube, who are actually trying to keep it
"FUN, CLEAN and REAL," are swamped with the massive volume of inappropriate
material being published. They have mechanisms to clean things up, but
YouTube relies mostly on its users to flag any content found to be
inappropriate for public view.

Seeing this as a parent, I wrote a program to expedite the identification
and flagging of things that I don't think that my kids or anyone else's
kids should see by accident. I generally don't want to see it by accident
either.

F-off.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>>
>>> greatly appreciate your immediate efforts. And I'll be readily
>>> available to help get you started hitting YouTube with a reality
>>> check of a world-wide collective effort against Pornography and
>>> Obscenity in the public domain.
>>
>> You mean back to the time young people were ignorant, and got
>> pregnant because they had no clue what's going on? Your "effort" is a
>> crusade, and hopefully will fail.
>
> No. I mean back to the time, just a few years ago, when people
> couldn't put personal stuff like this in the public domain.
>
> this guy

I have to log in to get there (couldn't be bugged), and to press a confirm
button.

> this girl

Both people look old enough to me to be aware about what they are doing.

What is your crusade about? Having them banned from YouTube to protect
them?

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma writes:
> What is your crusade about? Having them banned from YouTube to protect
> them?

YouTube allows pornographic videos (among others) to be flagged, and
reserves to itself the right to remove said videos and/or ban the
people who posted them. The OP seems to be trying to make it easier
for people to flag videos as inappropiate, which action (the flagging,
though apparently not the making easier) is not only allowed, but
encouraged, by YouTube-- though I must confess that, offhand, I don't
see how it's any easier than clicking on the "Flag as Inappropriate"
link. Then again, I think a lot of things people do are harder than
necessary (such as running Windows), and I don't see a problem with
letting them do that anyway.

-=Eric

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>>>
>>>> greatly appreciate your immediate efforts. And I'll be readily
>>>> available to help get you started hitting YouTube with a reality
>>>> check of a world-wide collective effort against Pornography and
>>>> Obscenity in the public domain.
>>>
>>> You mean back to the time young people were ignorant, and got
>>> pregnant because they had no clue what's going on? Your "effort" is a
>>> crusade, and hopefully will fail.
>>
>> No. I mean back to the time, just a few years ago, when people
>> couldn't put personal stuff like this in the public domain.
>>
>> this guy
>
> I have to log in to get there (couldn't be bugged), and to press a confirm
> button.
>
>> this girl
>
> Both people look old enough to me to be aware about what they are doing.
>
> What is your crusade about? Having them banned from YouTube to protect
> them?
>

They don't get banned, unless they have violated YouTube's Terms of Use
policy. You saw it with the guy's video. You could not see it, right?
Because you've not registered as an adult at YouTube. I flagged his video,
but I haven't flagged the girl's video yet, because I need it that way
right now to demonstrate to you, Doubting Thomas, about what is going on.
You could not see his video, because his video has been flagged as
inappropriate material. His video is still readily available for viewing
by registered adults, if they explicitly tell YouTube that they choose to
view that type of adult material during their current login session.

It's completely up to the adult, but kept away from the children, teenagers
and the general public. Got it? Do you have any civil rights problems
with that?

The girl's video can still be viewed by children, teenagers and the general
public, because I haven't flagged it yet. She is not banned from YouTube,
and she won't be banned after I flag her video to keep it out of the public
domain. This is the way that YouTube works, and I think that it is very
fair to all members of the general public and the YouTube user community.

The problem is the amount of inappropriate material coming in regularly. I
decided to register as a developer with YouTube, and I've developed
WWW::YouTube with a program to speed things up for me to find and flag
adult content, for the simple purpose of protecting kids, teenagers and the
general public from having to be exposed to things that they don't
explicitly choose to watch within the usage terms that YouTube has defined.

Does this still seem like a zealous crusade to you, or is YouTube's approach
a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing Pornography and
Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> Does this still seem like a zealous crusade to you,

Maybe reread what you just wrote. The answer is obvious.

> or is YouTube's
> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?

With "Parents" you mean those adults that think that education is up to
the school and governement?

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> Does this still seem like a zealous crusade to you,
>
> Maybe reread what you just wrote. The answer is obvious.
>
>> or is YouTube's
>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>
> With "Parents" you mean those adults that think that education is up to
> the school and governement?
>
Hey! I'm not your Dad. The answer is no.

Education:

What do children and teenagers need to learn about in their formative years?

First:
"FUN, CLEAN and REAL" kid stuff, in a safe and nurturing environment.

Second:
Other more complicated stuff, with professional and parental guidance.

Gradually:
Adult stuff, with age appropriate education and parental guidance.

Never:
How to Self-worship yourself, by sucking on your own F-ing toes! : )

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> First:
> "FUN, CLEAN and REAL" kid stuff, in a safe and nurturing
> environment.


Sex is fun, can be clean, and is certainly real. Sucking on your own toes
can be fun if they are clean, and kids do such things :-D

> Never:
> How to Self-worship yourself, by sucking on your own F-ing
> toes! : )

Ah, well, let's hope you are indeed not serious there. Since if that's
already a never, what would you have to say on the topic of masturbation?

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> First:
>> "FUN, CLEAN and REAL" kid stuff, in a safe and nurturing
>> environment.
>
>
> Sex is fun, can be clean, and is certainly real. Sucking on your own toes
> can be fun if they are clean, and kids do such things :-D
>
>> Never:
>> How to Self-worship yourself, by sucking on your own F-ing
>> toes! : )
>
> Ah, well, let's hope you are indeed not serious there. Since if that's
> already a never, what would you have to say on the topic of masturbation?
>

I know Socrates, and believe me you are no Socrates.

I can't debate with you too much longer, because there is no way in hell
that you are going to convert me into a Liberal Democrat, okay. My ethical
foundations are quite well established, so my ideals and values, are what
they are, and you're not going to change me, anymore than I'm going to
change you. Agreed? My value set goes into my children, and your's in
yours.

If I had thought to videotape my children, sucking on their fingers and toes
in the crib, I'd publish that video on YouTube like any other proud Dad
would do. Because my children were beautiful babies, like all others.

I'm an absolute zealot about my children, like all Dads should be.

You make a serious mistake to confuse the dawning of a young developing
human being, the complete innocence of an infant at play, as it learns
where the body begins, and learns where the body ends, in an adult
discussion about Pornography and Obscenity. I'm sorry. You're going too
far there with your toe sucking analogy.

Yes sir, like another saying goes -- "Masterbation happens!" But when I see
some guy or girl mastering themselves in a public video published on
YouTube, I flag his or her ass, ASAP! Yes sir, that may have been me who
did that to your "special feature" video the other day. Sorry -- NOT!

I have yet to flag any dog humping a stuffed animal video, and I've seen a
few of those videos in my passing. My kids saw our dog humping their
stuffed animals, but I didn't have any video tape at the time, so that I
couldn't publish it globally, in order to educate the entire general public
on the proper technique for any well-groomed Beagle to hump a child's
favorite stuffed bunny.

Someone else flagged the horny donkey chasing the guy in the field, not me.

Had fun! : )

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric R Meyers writes:

Eric> You didn't watch? : ( Typical antagonist.

No, I happen to want to ensure that first amendment rights between consenting
adults are protected, and that people (perhaps like you) don't get to select
what I may choose or not choose to watch by *consent*.

If you had said:

I want to help develop a self-rating system so that others who share
my views can filter things within our community.

You would have gotten my support. Instead, you came off as (sorry
if this is not accurate... this is just my impression):

I want to ensure that NOBODY can see the kind of AMAZINGLY AWFUL STUFF
I just found on you-tube (OMG!).

See, if you aren't censoring me, and you can respect that I may want to watch
the stuff that you abhor, I can also respect that you want to watch a
different set of things. After all, I consider some forms of country music
rather obscene, as well as some bagpipe playing. But that doesn't mean I
consider those who listen to it inherently demented, and try to make sure
that *no* website carries bagpipe music.

That's where you are failing in your plea. Speak about it as "I am a member
of group X, and I want to make it easier for OTHER MEMBERS OF GROUP X to
select what we see on YouTube". You'll get hella more support for that.

Don't make me wrong for wanting different things. Work with me on this.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095

Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>> this girl
[...]
> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?

Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own feet
constitute pornography of obscenity?

jue

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

KEYWORD: YouTube
KEYWORD: Registered
KEYWORD: Adults
KEYWORD: Terms of Use
KEYWORD: Rating System
KEYWORD: Children (Kids)
KEYWORD: Teenagers (Kids)
KEYWORD: group PARENT
KEYWORD: Flagging

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric R Meyers writes:
>
> Eric> You didn't watch? : ( Typical antagonist.
>
> No, I happen to want to ensure that first amendment rights between
> consenting adults are protected, and that people (perhaps like you) don't
> get to select what I may choose or not choose to watch by *consent*.
>

YouTube's Registered Adults can do what they want to do on YouTube, as long
as it it within the Terms of Use guidelines that YouTube has defined.

YouTube says it wants its public forum to be "FUN, CLEAN and REAL."

YouTube's flagging simply takes a video out of public view, yet YouTube's
Registered Adults can still explicitly choose to view those videos deemed
inappropriate for viewing by the general public.

> If you had said:
>
> I want to help develop a self-rating system so that others who
> share my views can filter things within our community.
>
> You would have gotten my support. Instead, you came off as (sorry
> if this is not accurate... this is just my impression):
>
> I want to ensure that NOBODY can see the kind of AMAZINGLY AWFUL
> STUFF I just found on you-tube (OMG!).
>

KEYWORD: NOBODY => NO Kids

> See, if you aren't censoring me, and you can respect that I may want to
> watch the stuff that you abhor, I can also respect that you want to watch
> a
> different set of things. After all, I consider some forms of country
> music
> rather obscene, as well as some bagpipe playing. But that doesn't mean I
> consider those who listen to it inherently demented, and try to make sure
> that *no* website carries bagpipe music.
>
> That's where you are failing in your plea. Speak about it as "I am a
> member of group X, and I want to make it easier for OTHER MEMBERS OF GROUP
> X to
> select what we see on YouTube". You'll get hella more support for that.

>
> Don't make me wrong for wanting different things. Work with me on this.
>

YouTube has defined all of the operating parameters for their website.

The Rating System included.

I simply wrote a fairly complex prototype that pushes the right buttons at
YouTube to expedite the search and flagging process.

No harm done to your adult rights, because I'm just exercising my own adult
rights to protect my children, that is all.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>> this girl
> [...]
>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>
> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own feet
> constitute pornography of obscenity?
>
> jue

Pick one. : )

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=inappropri ate

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Pornograph y
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Obscenity

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=self-worsh ip
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=fetishism

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> No harm done to your adult rights, because I'm just exercising my own
> adult rights to protect my children, that is all.

Who's proctecting them from you?

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> No harm done to your adult rights, because I'm just exercising my own
>> adult rights to protect my children, that is all.
>
> Who's proctecting them from you?
>
There Mother.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Jürgen Exner" wrote:

> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>> this girl
> [...]
>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>
> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own
> feet constitute pornography of obscenity?

Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-) Maybe a better question is,
how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"


--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> No harm done to your adult rights, because I'm just exercising my own
>> adult rights to protect my children, that is all.
>
> Who's proctecting them from you?
>
Their Mother. (fixed a typo)

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Jürgen Exner" wrote:
>
>> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>>> this girl
>> [...]
>>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>>
>> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
>> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own
>> feet constitute pornography of obscenity?
>
> Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-) Maybe a better question is,
> how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"
>
>
Even you don't know what you just watched, so how could you expect a young
impressionable mind to understand it and process it correctly.

It's inappropriate for the public forum, but it would still be viewable by
registered adults, if they explicitly choose to view this
Fetishism/Self-worship video.

These words just came to mind:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gadfly
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=nitpick

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric Schwartz wrote:

> John Bokma writes:
>> What is your crusade about? Having them banned from YouTube to protect
>> them?
>
> YouTube allows pornographic videos (among others) to be flagged, and
> reserves to itself the right to remove said videos and/or ban the
> people who posted them. The OP seems to be trying to make it easier
> for people to flag videos as inappropiate, which action (the flagging,
> though apparently not the making easier) is not only allowed, but
> encouraged, by YouTube-- though I must confess that, offhand, I don't
> see how it's any easier than clicking on the "Flag as Inappropriate"
> link. Then again, I think a lot of things people do are harder than
> necessary (such as running Windows), and I don't see a problem with
> letting them do that anyway.

http://search.cpan.org/~ermeyers/WWW-YouTube-2006.0615/lib/W WW/YouTube.pm

Which includes bible quotes to make a point, so go figure. Maybe someone
can clean up CPAN in order to protect Eric R. Meyers against himself? I
doubt if CPAN is a platform for Christian zealots.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> Even you don't know what you just watched, so how could you expect a
> young impressionable mind to understand it and process it correctly.

By picking parts out of a collection of stories and keep quoting them?

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric Schwartz wrote:

> John Bokma writes:
>> What is your crusade about? Having them banned from YouTube to protect
>> them?
>
> YouTube allows pornographic videos (among others) to be flagged, and
> reserves to itself the right to remove said videos and/or ban the
> people who posted them. The OP seems to be trying to make it easier
> for people to flag videos as inappropiate, which action (the flagging,
> though apparently not the making easier) is not only allowed, but
> encouraged, by YouTube-- though I must confess that, offhand, I don't
> see how it's any easier than clicking on the "Flag as Inappropriate"
> link. Then again, I think a lot of things people do are harder than
> necessary (such as running Windows), and I don't see a problem with
> letting them do that anyway.
>
> -=Eric

I don't use Windows.

I use YouTube's XML-RPC API to collect data, and I do processing which
allows me to focus in on the videos of interest. I have a firefox browser
remote based interface which allows me to efficiently query, view and flag
with less button actions, than if I was inefficiently browsing through
YouTube's standard user pages.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:
> Jrgen Exner wrote:
>
>> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>>> this girl
>> [...]
>>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>>
>> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
>> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own
>> feet constitute pornography of obscenity?

> Pick one. : )

> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Pornograph y
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Obscenity

Looking at just these two: that definition of obscenity is circular.

And that definition of pornogrophy although widely used is useless in this
context because many people find eating bananas or licking ice cone erotic.
Does that mean an ad for bananas and ice cream is pornogrophy?
I was more looking for a _legal_ definition of pornogrophy like e.g. "A
picture of an erect penis that for a standing male is raised to at least
horizontal position". I remember a law suit where the model was standing in
a lake and in court it was debated, if the penis was erect and therefore
horizontal or if it was floating on the water and therefore horizontal.

Now, my question again: which country or society classifies licking feet as
pornography _in the legal sense_?

jue

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> I use YouTube's XML-RPC API to collect data, and I do processing which
> allows me to focus in on the videos of interest. I have a firefox
> browser remote based interface which allows me to efficiently query,
> view and flag with less button actions, than if I was inefficiently
> browsing through YouTube's standard user pages.

In short, you're on a crusade, and you drag CPAN down into it IMO.
Justifying your actions by quoting from a collection of stories like a
true zealot.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> Eric Schwartz wrote:
>
>> John Bokma writes:
>>> What is your crusade about? Having them banned from YouTube to protect
>>> them?
>>
>> YouTube allows pornographic videos (among others) to be flagged, and
>> reserves to itself the right to remove said videos and/or ban the
>> people who posted them. The OP seems to be trying to make it easier
>> for people to flag videos as inappropiate, which action (the flagging,
>> though apparently not the making easier) is not only allowed, but
>> encouraged, by YouTube-- though I must confess that, offhand, I don't
>> see how it's any easier than clicking on the "Flag as Inappropriate"
>> link. Then again, I think a lot of things people do are harder than
>> necessary (such as running Windows), and I don't see a problem with
>> letting them do that anyway.
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~ermeyers/WWW-YouTube-2006.0615/lib/W WW/YouTube.pm
>
> Which includes bible quotes to make a point, so go figure. Maybe someone
> can clean up CPAN in order to protect Eric R. Meyers against himself? I
> doubt if CPAN is a platform for Christian zealots.
>
I'm putting up with you today, because of my personal Faith in God, and a
very simple passion for protecting my children. These were the very
important things and the overall theme that led me to spend many long hours
developing a prototype from an initial concept and publishing it openly to
CPAN, for the world to use freely, under the perl license.

Re: "bible quotes to make a point"

The Bible is the most read book, and the most quoted book.

There are many parents in this world, and a significant number of them are
Christians like me. Am I supposed to be embarrassed by you, or for you.

I'll just let you keep making a fool out of yourself, until you go away.

Like I said, a gadfly. Socrates was much better at it than you, I'm sure.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:
> "Jürgen Exner" wrote:
>
>> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>>> this girl
>> [...]
>>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>>
>> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
>> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own
>> feet constitute pornography of obscenity?
>
> Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-)

Well, maybe. Question 1: does that make it pornogrophy?

> Maybe a better question
> is, how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"

And that's question two. To me it rather disgusting (or shall we say poor
taste) then erotic.

jue

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric R Meyers writes:
>
> Eric> You didn't watch? : ( Typical antagonist.
>
> No, I happen to want to ensure that first amendment rights between
> consenting adults are protected, and that people (perhaps like you) don't
> get to select what I may choose or not choose to watch by *consent*.
>
> If you had said:
>
> I want to help develop a self-rating system so that others who
> share my views can filter things within our community.
>
> You would have gotten my support. Instead, you came off as (sorry
> if this is not accurate... this is just my impression):
>
> I want to ensure that NOBODY can see the kind of AMAZINGLY AWFUL
> STUFF I just found on you-tube (OMG!).
>
> See, if you aren't censoring me, and you can respect that I may want to
> watch the stuff that you abhor, I can also respect that you want to watch
> a
> different set of things. After all, I consider some forms of country
> music
> rather obscene, as well as some bagpipe playing. But that doesn't mean I
> consider those who listen to it inherently demented, and try to make sure
> that *no* website carries bagpipe music.
>
> That's where you are failing in your plea. Speak about it as "I am a
> member of group X, and I want to make it easier for OTHER MEMBERS OF GROUP
> X to
> select what we see on YouTube". You'll get hella more support for that.
>
> Don't make me wrong for wanting different things. Work with me on this.
>

Randal,

I appreciate you effort to communicate towards agreement.

One of my personal axioms, "Anything worth doing is difficult," is being
very well proved today.

I took a little break, and while I was resting this came to mind, for you.

It should reassure you that I'm just another good citizen like you. I'm
just another registered YouTube user in the overall YouTube user community;
although, I'm also registered as a developer with YouTube, which gives me
no special privileges other than I can access the read-only API called the
YouTube Developers API.

As you might have read initially, while I was working with my program, I
managed to get banned temporarily from YouTube, because of what they said
was some unknown human error on their side. I was not happy. I'll tell
you that they don't necessarily like me or trust me, because they don't
know me either, and they don't understand necessarily what I'm doing,
anymore than the people I'm meeting in this forum today understand me. I
can be very "nice," and I can be very "rude," at times.

I'm a registered user, but a relatively unknown third-party to YouTube, just
like anyone else out there in the general public not directly connected
with YouTube. I don't have the final say on any YouTube flagging. All
that I can do is express my opinion to YouTube about any candidate video.
All that I can do is make a flagging request to YouTube, and they process
and review the request accordingly.

I have no means to impose my worldview upon others.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-) Maybe a better question
>> is, how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"
>>
> Even you don't know what you just watched, so how could you expect a
> young impressionable mind to understand it and process it correctly.

I can't speak for John, but if it was meant to be pornographic, then in my
opinion it missed the goal by a very long shot!

> It's inappropriate for the public forum, but it would still be

Someone cleaning her feet in a most awkward way: well, that's a sign of
stupidity, nothing else.

jue

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:
> I'm putting up with you today, because of my personal Faith in God,

Well, then, would you mind keeping your faith in your church and not molest
your fellow citizen?

jue

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-) Maybe a better question
>>> is, how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"
>>>
>> Even you don't know what you just watched, so how could you expect a
>> young impressionable mind to understand it and process it correctly.
>
> I can't speak for John, but if it was meant to be pornographic, then in my
> opinion it missed the goal by a very long shot!
>
>> It's inappropriate for the public forum, but it would still be
>
> Someone cleaning her feet in a most awkward way: well, that's a sign of
> stupidity, nothing else.
>
> jue

YouTube is in California, and California is in the United States.

I'm in the United States, jue, so I'll answer In the United States stuff
like this tends to be considered inappropriate for general public display.

John said that kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"

I say that most responsible adults, like me, may consider it
"inappropriate."

I'm going to flag her video right now, for you, and if I'm wrong, then she
won't get flagged by YouTube, but if I'm right, then she'll be flagged by
YouTube, based upon my request as a registered user. It's just my opinion,
about a pair of trivial videos that I found and was using as a fairly
decent example of some real junk to be found out there, and how YouTube
works. If YouTube disagrees, then they disagree, and life goes on for me.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>> I'm putting up with you today, because of my personal Faith in God,
>
> Well, then, would you mind keeping your faith in your church and not
> molest your fellow citizen?
>
> jue
If you'll keep homosexuality and other perversions in a very secret place of
your own, then I'll keep the faith in my heart unused. But that won't
happen on your side, so the answer is no on my side.

And how is protecting children and teenagers from being exposed to adult
material, a molestation of a fellow citizen's right to expose himself or
herself to kids. You want to talk about law?

I'm putting these videos into the adult-content closet -- ASAP.

If smokers today have to go into the outdoor smoking shed to light up, then
why is it not very appropriate for adults to go into the adult-content
closet to watch these videos.

Sorry. I'm very right, and you're very wrong!

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> "Jürgen Exner" wrote:
>>
>>> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>>>> this girl
>>> [...]
>>>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>>>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
>>> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own
>>> feet constitute pornography of obscenity?
>>
>> Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-)
>
> Well, maybe. Question 1: does that make it pornogrophy?
>
>> Maybe a better question
>> is, how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"
>
> And that's question two. To me it rather disgusting (or shall we say poor
> taste) then erotic.
>
> jue

It's just simply inappropriate content, one person may say that it's
obscene, while another person may say that it's pornography, while another
person may just say "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!" and move on.

This is YouTube's banner statement:

"This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as
flagged by YouTube's user community."

We all have our opinions, but they're only our opinions.

YouTube's people make the real call, and act according to their opinion.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> Re: "bible quotes to make a point"
>
> The Bible is the most read book, and the most quoted book.

It's also the most abused book for personal crusades and has been used to
justify crimes against humanity.


--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Jürgen Exner" wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> "Jürgen Exner" wrote:
>>
>>> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>>>>>> this girl
>>> [...]
>>>> approach a very fair and reasonable means to handle the growing
>>>> Pornography and Obscenity issues that we "Parents" face today?
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity I couldn't help watching the aforementioned video.
>>> Just one question: in which country or society does licking your own
>>> feet constitute pornography of obscenity?
>>
>> Well IMO the girl's act was quite erotic :-)
>
> Well, maybe. Question 1: does that make it pornogrophy?

In general, no IMO.

>> Maybe a better question
>> is, how many kids will consider it "OMG!!! Grooowwwwse!!"
>
> And that's question two. To me it rather disgusting (or shall we say
> poor taste) then erotic.

Matter of taste I guess :-)

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" wrote:
>
>> Re: "bible quotes to make a point"
>>
>> The Bible is the most read book, and the most quoted book.
>
> It's also the most abused book for personal crusades and has been used to
> justify crimes against humanity.
>
>

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR’s First Inaugural Address

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:
> I'm putting these videos into the adult-content closet -- ASAP.

Just remember to put the steaks in the supermarket into the adult-content
closet, too, because they are inappropriate for vegetarians.

And as a christian be sure to mark all those videos about military equipment
and people in uniforms as inappropriate for children. After all they are in
direct contradiction to the most christian believe of non-violance and
forgiveness.
And even worse those photos and videos that are all over TV of those world
leaders (who are supposed to be role models for children) who associate
themself with such violance.

'nough said.

*PLONK*

jue

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>> I'm putting these videos into the adult-content closet -- ASAP.
>
> Just remember to put the steaks in the supermarket into the adult-content
> closet, too, because they are inappropriate for vegetarians.
>
> And as a christian be sure to mark all those videos about military
> equipment and people in uniforms as inappropriate for children. After all
> they are in direct contradiction to the most christian believe of
> non-violance and forgiveness.
> And even worse those photos and videos that are all over TV of those world
> leaders (who are supposed to be role models for children) who associate
> themself with such violance.
>
> 'nough said.
>
> *PLONK*
>
> jue
Good morning!

You can take care of these matters of interest for yourself can't you?

It's funny, but I remember finding meat in the meat section, vegetables in
the vegetable section, canned foods in the canned food section, diapers and
paper in the diaper and paper section, etc.

I'm a Systems Engineer, and I used to develop U.S Naval combat systems.

'nough said.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> Eric R. Meyers wrote:
>> I'm putting these videos into the adult-content closet -- ASAP.
>
> Just remember to put the steaks in the supermarket into the adult-content
> closet, too, because they are inappropriate for vegetarians.
>
> And as a christian be sure to mark all those videos about military
> equipment and people in uniforms as inappropriate for children. After all
> they are in direct contradiction to the most christian believe of
> non-violance and forgiveness.
> And even worse those photos and videos that are all over TV of those world
> leaders (who are supposed to be role models for children) who associate
> themself with such violance.
>
> 'nough said.
>
> *PLONK*
>
> jue

More thoughts.

I last said that I used to develop U.S. Naval combat systems.

Yesterday, and now today, we've been talking about a program that I've
developed "to protect children," and Jue and John started getting very
militant and combative with me, calling me a zealous Christian crusader,
blaming me for all of the Recorded Errors of Christianity and the Complete
History of all the many misinterpretations and misquotations of God's Word,
as it's found unchanged over time, within The Bible.

Jue last wrote about a "direct contradiction to the most christian believe
of non-violance and forgiveness."

NON-VIOLENCE:

I wrote a computer program to protect children from visual attacks.

FORGIVENESS:

Registered adults can still see these videos, if they choose.

Now, 'nough said!

: )

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" writes:

> know me either, and they don't understand necessarily what I'm doing,
> anymore than the people I'm meeting in this forum today understand me.

The impression you give is one of someone who's trying to push *your* morals
down *my* throat. If that's not an accurate impression, then you need to work
on giving a different one, because I'm obviously not the only person who feels
this way.

With that in mind, here's a suggested rewrite of your initial post:

WWW::YouTube is a module that allows registered YouTube developers to
access that site's "flagging" API from Perl.

That's truly all that needs to be said about it, at least in this, a technical
forum. Your own ideas about what flags should be applied to specific content
are both off-topic for this group and completely irrelevant with respect to
what your module does, and expressing them here accomplishes little more than
alienating potential users.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Sherm Pendley wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" writes:
>
>> know me either, and they don't understand necessarily what I'm doing,
>> anymore than the people I'm meeting in this forum today understand
>> me.
>
> The impression you give is one of someone who's trying to push *your*
> morals down *my* throat. If that's not an accurate impression, then
> you need to work on giving a different one, because I'm obviously not
> the only person who feels this way.
>
> With that in mind, here's a suggested rewrite of your initial post:
>
> WWW::YouTube is a module that allows registered YouTube
> developers to access that site's "flagging" API from Perl.
>
> That's truly all that needs to be said about it, at least in this, a
> technical forum. Your own ideas about what flags should be applied to
> specific content are both off-topic for this group and completely
> irrelevant with respect to what your module does, and expressing them
> here accomplishes little more than alienating potential users.

Nicely put.

I want to add that in my opinion the same should hold for Eric's entries
at CPAN. I had almost the feeling that I was encouraged to start collect
wood to burn some sinners.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Sherm Pendley wrote:

> "Eric R. Meyers" writes:
>
>> know me either, and they don't understand necessarily what I'm doing,
>> anymore than the people I'm meeting in this forum today understand me.
>
> The impression you give is one of someone who's trying to push *your*
> morals down *my* throat. If that's not an accurate impression, then you
> need to work on giving a different one, because I'm obviously not the only
> person who feels this way.
>
> With that in mind, here's a suggested rewrite of your initial post:
>
> WWW::YouTube is a module that allows registered YouTube developers
> to access that site's "flagging" API from Perl.
>
> That's truly all that needs to be said about it, at least in this, a
> technical forum. Your own ideas about what flags should be applied to
> specific content are both off-topic for this group and completely
> irrelevant with respect to what your module does, and expressing them here
> accomplishes little more than alienating potential users.
>
> sherm--
>

Hello Sherm,

Like everyone else so far, I'm giving you the courtesy of a good response.

The last line of what you've replied to here, explicitly stated that "I have
no means to impose my worldview upon others."

I had no intentions, other than to provide a more efficient means protect
children, teenagers and the general public from inappropriate content. I
simply wrote a program to protect children from visual attacks, announced
WWW::YouTube and then asked for some help from like-minded people around
the world, and then I had to respond appropriately to the spontaneous
debate that occurred.

These negative first impressions, expressed by a small handful of people,
are not The Truth, and they don't really concern me and my endeavor as much
as they've just been very negative reactions to their discovery of my
Christian faith.

My Christian faith goes with me everywhere that I go. I won't ever be
ashamed of The Truth, and The Truth will never let me down in a debate.

I flag videos to keep them out of the public domain, but registered adults
still have their full right to choose to view the content that has been
flagged as inappropriate for ALL viewers.

A handful of people have reacted with their personal impressions and
expressed their own personal opinions, here in this technical forum, and I
have tried my best to respond to them appropriately, by expressing my
opinion right back to them. I think that the average person out there who
has been watching this healthy debate, including Dads and Moms, Christians,
Muslims, and other people of faith in the world, can see The Truth exposed
better than this handful that showed up to nitpick, and the couple who got
militant and combative with me for being a Christian.

I'm just a Dad looking out for his kids, and sharing his program with the
other Dads or Moms out there whom might be interested in participating in
this endeavor, if not something else very much like it where they live.

Yes, Ripley's Believe It or Not, some other Dads and Moms out there across
the globe write Perl programs, too. And Shish! Some of them, like me, are
Christians. Scary thought?

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> "Eric R. Meyers" writes:
>>
>>> know me either, and they don't understand necessarily what I'm doing,
>>> anymore than the people I'm meeting in this forum today understand
>>> me.
>>
>> The impression you give is one of someone who's trying to push *your*
>> morals down *my* throat. If that's not an accurate impression, then
>> you need to work on giving a different one, because I'm obviously not
>> the only person who feels this way.
>>
>> With that in mind, here's a suggested rewrite of your initial post:
>>
>> WWW::YouTube is a module that allows registered YouTube
>> developers to access that site's "flagging" API from Perl.
>>
>> That's truly all that needs to be said about it, at least in this, a
>> technical forum. Your own ideas about what flags should be applied to
>> specific content are both off-topic for this group and completely
>> irrelevant with respect to what your module does, and expressing them
>> here accomplishes little more than alienating potential users.
>
> Nicely put.
>
> I want to add that in my opinion the same should hold for Eric's entries
> at CPAN. I had almost the feeling that I was encouraged to start collect
> wood to burn some sinners.
>

John was nitpick #1, who started this firestorm of a debate in this
technical forum, and he's still coming here adding more fuel to the fire.

Look around folks, his name is absolutely everywhere, almost more than mine
is. I've just been responding to each.

I'll ask this honest question now.

Am I more likely to try to burn John, The Sinner, or is John more likely to
try to burn me, The Christian Sinner.

Anyone?

John, I wish that you would shut up, and stop making a fool of yourself.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" writes:

> Like everyone else so far, I'm giving you the courtesy of a good response.

Responding to courtesy with courtesy - what a novelty. Is that such an unusual
thing for you that you feel the need to brag about it?

> I had no intentions, other than to provide a more efficient means protect
> children, teenagers and the general public from inappropriate content.

This is not the forum to discuss what's "appropriate" content and what's not.
This forum is for discussing technical issues. Please stay on topic and stop
spamming this group with your personal idealogy.

I've asked you twice now - my third request will be to your internet provider.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Eric R. Meyers" wrote:

> John was nitpick #1, who started this firestorm of a debate in this
> technical forum, and he's still coming here adding more fuel to the
> fire.

That's because I think a technical forum is not the place for burning
witches, nor is CPAN IMO.

Had you written "Announce: WWW:YouTube a module for helping people to flag
content on YouTube" nobody would have reacted. Instead you forced your
"good Christian parenthood" on many people without thinking if people
really want to have that stuffed down their throats. Like a true zealot,
on a crusade.

> John, I wish that you would shut up, and stop making a fool of
> yourself.

Alas, your wish is not granted because it's selfish. A good Christian
should know that ;-)

Finally, I think you're the first true bigot that has dropped his drivel
in this group:

"If you'll keep homosexuality and other perversions in a very secret place
of your own, then I'll keep the faith in my heart unused."


Good luck in finding the truth. You can't be further away from it IMNSHO.


--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric R. Meyers wrote:

: How to Self-worship yourself, by sucking on your own F-ing toes! : )

It is spelt F-ing but is pronounced foot's, or not?

Please forgive (and inform) a not native speaker.

Oliver.

--
Dr. Oliver Corff e-mail: corff@zedat.fu-berlin.de

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

> I was a registered developer with YouTube, and they've BLACKLISTED me for
> flagging videos in the areas of "hot babes," "foot fetish" and "bondage
> tickling."

Doesn't anyone realize that this poster is a troll with a PAUSE account?
You've been feeding him breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

A better question would be whether he has named his module appropriately
or is hogging up the primary WWW::YouTube namespace when he could have
named it WWW::YouTube::Filter to better effect.

--
Jonathan K. Cohen, MA - jkcohen@pobox.com
"Imaginary solutions to real problems."
Irvine, California, USA

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

"Jonathan K. Cohen" wrote:

>
>> I was a registered developer with YouTube, and they've BLACKLISTED me
>> for flagging videos in the areas of "hot babes," "foot fetish" and
>> "bondage tickling."
>
> Doesn't anyone realize that this poster is a troll with a PAUSE
> account?

A zealot with a PAUSE account, which worries me more to be honest.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma writes:
> "Jonathan K. Cohen" wrote:
> > Doesn't anyone realize that this poster is a troll with a PAUSE
> > account?

"Disagrees with me" != "troll"

> A zealot with a PAUSE account, which worries me more to be honest.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it
means. In particular, he's said that if YouTube disagrees with him,
he'll just go on with life. That's pretty much the opposite of any
useful definition of "zealot" I can come up with.

Basically, he's developed a way to use a feature of YouTube that, for
him, is easier than clicking on a bunch of links manually. He's using
the feature the way it was intended. That you or I might not (heck,
I'll go out on a limb here and say "almost certianly don't") agree
with him on what ought to be flagged is entirely beside the point. If
YouTube agrees with him, and marks a particular video as "adults
only", and both you and I disagree, our complaint should be lodged
with YouTube, not him. It is solely their responsibility to act on
these flags; all flagging does is suggest to them that they ought to
take a look at the video. It doesn't, AFAICT, force them to do
anything. If there are any dire consequences to this fellow's code,
it's YouTube's fault, at the end of the day.

And while you're at it, tone down the alarmist rhetoric, it's making
you look silly. This is supposed to be a technical group, after all;
if you have no comment on the merits, or lack thereof, of the module
name he has chosen, or the operation of the code, then send him an
email or something. This is c.l.p.modules, no
c.l.p.save.the.internet.

-=Eric

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma wrote:

> "Jonathan K. Cohen" wrote:
>
>>
>>> I was a registered developer with YouTube, and they've BLACKLISTED me
>>> for flagging videos in the areas of "hot babes," "foot fetish" and
>>> "bondage tickling."
>>
>> Doesn't anyone realize that this poster is a troll with a PAUSE
>> account?
>
> A zealot with a PAUSE account, which worries me more to be honest.

Is that because PAUSE accounts should be reserved for people who believe
similarly to yourself? Obviously, that's not a live-and-let-live
philosophy - what, exactly, is a non-worrisome belief system, that we may
properly filter PAUSE accounts based on some simple questionnaire? Asking
simply whether the petitioner is a zealot isn't likely to work, since most
people you'd label as such probably wouldn't label themselves as such, so
we'll need to be much more sneaky about it...

Or perhaps we should all better embrace the open-source philosophy of
entrusting that our donations to the public good of time and expertise in
the form of help on newsgroups combined with releases of our own software
on CPAN will help the world in many ways, despite the fact that those who
we may disagree with can also use that same code (or find the expertise via
google)?

Peoples of all faiths and creeds helping one another, rather than bashing
each other.

Reserve your tirades for and against organised religions for the newsgroups
discussing those tirades. If you don't want to help the OP, then don't.
If you feel the OP is trolling over his comments on *why* he wrote his
code, *don't feed the trolls*. Let's return this newsgroup back to talking
about perl modules.

I sincerely doubt that his religious beliefs will change the usefulness of
his code to you or others. After all, if he was an extreme porno lover, he
might have written the same code to help him find and tag such content so
he knew what to come back to. Would you stop using a hammer to put
together your carpentry if you found out that a religious person had
invented it? (Not claiming that to be the case - just for the sake of
argument.) I doubt it. So just drop the thread already. Please.

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Darin McBride wrote:


> Is that because PAUSE accounts should be reserved for people who
> believe similarly to yourself?

Should a personal crusade happen on CPAN?

Technical documentation shouldn't read as a call to arms for the next
crusade. Maybe reread my previous posts before you jump again to
conclusions.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Darin McBride writes:

> Is that because PAUSE accounts should be reserved for people who believe
> similarly to yourself?

No. It's because religion - *any* religion, yours, mine, or anyone else's -
has no place in a technical discussion. As this thread amply demonstrates,
bringing it up serves only to incite arguments.

Please - let this thread die. It serves no useful purpose.

> Reserve your tirades for and against organised religions for the newsgroups
> discussing those tirades.

*You* brought this up again, not John.

> So just drop the thread already. Please.

We *did* drop it - then you picked it up again.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Darin McBride writes:

> So just drop the thread already. Please.

After reviewing the thread, I see that I was wrong, it wasn't you that
brought it back, it was someone else.

Still - the best way to kill a thread is to simply stop posting in it. A
long-winded rant about why it should be killed is rarely effective.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric Schwartz wrote:

> You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it
> means.

Did you read the CPAN entry for the module? I guess not, here is a link:

2006.0615/lib/WWW/YouTube.pm>

How does this differ from entry 2 at
http://www.answers.com/zealot ?

Question: should a technical description for a module read like a call to
arms for the next crusade? I don't think so.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

John Bokma writes:
> Eric Schwartz wrote:
> > You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it
> > means.
>
> Did you read the CPAN entry for the module?

Acutally yes, I did.

> How does this differ from entry 2 at
> http://www.answers.com/zealot ?

Well, for one thing, the OP doesn't read like a member of any jewish
movement, much less one of the first century A.D., and he doesn't seem
particularly concerned with Roman rule in Palestine.

Or maybe you were referring to definition 2 in the Thesaurus section,
in which case pretty much everybody who's released code to CPAN is a
zealot ("ardently devoted to a particular subject or activity").

Honestly, it seems like your big problem is that he is religious,
which description applies to a good many people. His software does
not advocate any sort of religion; even his documentation, while
poorly-written and not up to what I would consider a professional
standard, cites religious texts, but does not force any religion on
anyone. Unless you view "trying to notify YouTube of videos which
ought to be flagged" as a religion, in which case you need help.

> Question: should a technical description for a module read like a call to
> arms for the next crusade? I don't think so.

I think 90% of it is largely irrelevant to the purpose of the module,
and could (should, even) be done away with. I'd rather see more
documentation on how to actually use the module than rantings about
why I ought to. That still doesn't make the author a zealot.

-=Eric

Re: ANNOUNCE: WWW::YouTube

Eric Schwartz wrote:

> Honestly, it seems like your big problem is that he is religious,

You are, again, mistaken.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/