For Your Eyes Only
Uploader Comments (wonderingmind42)
All Comments (99)
-
i was just called the nerdest geek D:<
-
nice one
-
I think the argument that glenra was making is that the government acted in a damaging way, rather than in a positive way. Action was demanded, and the government went to war.
(I'm not supporting nor opposing those actions, just saying.)
-
the grid was ok just shorten it alot more
-
Maybe you can get by without the grid but if you do you risk making a very hackneyed "better safe than sorry" argument which is pretty meaningless by itself.
-
This is a beautiful look into the scientific process!
-
Oh wow totally do NOT take out the grid..
that is what makes it possible for some of the less intelligent of us to wrap our minds around the issue..Plus it grabs your attention.. although you can make it less elaborate if you feel it is too time-consuming. You should make a movie out of these vids..
-
Have you approached any activist groups about you're ideas? I'm mean you've got a product that has produced big numbers. Heck, have you tried contacting someone like Al Gore for support and potential networking possibilities?
-
I guess I'm one of the nerdiest people because I've sat through hours of this stuff on YouTube! Maybe it's because this kind of stuff is EXTREMELY important & you should invest more than the 2 to 3 minutes found in most commercial breaks on TV that people are accustomed to! Plus the MTV generation syndrome where kids growing up watching "music" videos have no more attention span than the average video. It's gotta be FAST& NOW! I think a "documentary" would be the best way to get this word out.
I think your idea of an argument that you couldn't put holes in (which, indeed, was a brash statement, but was not that far off) was seen as audacious enough to the skeptics and that the argument itself seemed realistic enough that both sides would want to see what you had to say.
SteveTharPirate 4 years ago
So keep the audaciousness, because it's provocative. Is that right? (If so, I'm thinking of a title along the lines of "An Irrefutable Argument on Global Warming.") But what about snipboy's comment above that one reason the first video did well was that I seemed "to try to remain impartial"? My dilemma is that impartiality tends to be more convincing for those who watch, but audacity tends to be more inflamatory, getting more people to watch. Help!
wonderingmind42 4 years ago