Forums

Megycal said :
I agree with Rooh. I've said on another thread, whenever I see clips of video "catching" bad behaviour of people in authority I

always

wonder what has been edited out. Absolutely, which is why most respectable auditors will actually upload full, uncut, raw, versions of their audits, or why many of them go with more than one person.

Many auditors will also go live if they believe an incident is about to occur. There is no "editing" of live streamed videos. What you see is what you get.



Megycal said :
I'm starting to believe that the only things you can trust are what you've seen with your own eyes. With the advance of AI and computer editing there is now such a thing as "deepfake". I suppose it was inevitable that the technology would end up being used for things other than entertainment in films. LOL. Okay, sure, deepfakes are cool and all, but, that type of technology isn't being employed by auditors.

But I'll definitely join in that discussion if you make a thread about it. I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!

05-Mar-2021 15:52:45

05-Mar-2021 17:22:25 - Last edited on 05-Mar-2021 17:24:30 by FiFi LaFeles

LOL. Okay, sure, deepfakes are cool and all, but, that type of technology isn't being employed by auditors.

Of course it isn't. I believe you. Not.

Le Chat Guerrier

Bwian's Towel & Grief Shop

05-Mar-2021 17:23:33

FiFi LaFeles said :
You carry on believing in the good intentions of good ole Blind Joe. He has everyone's best interests at heart - as do all the others. And your faith in them not doing anything untoward is touching - of course they are there for the good of you, me and all the little people everywhere. I find it silly to base your position on something that could so easily be proven to be false by simply reviewing the discussion: NexOrigin said :
there are auditors who should not be doing audits. Do you think so little of your fellow community members that you believe you can fool them so easily?

FiFi LaFeles said :
Meanwhile, I will carry on believing that they are a bunch of rabble rousing, self-serving, disingenuous, narcissistic anarchists who should be spat on in the street. That's prejudiced. You should judge them all as individuals, based on their own merits, not based on the actions of someone else who happens to "fit into the same category".

Didn't your parents teach you not to be prejudiced?


FiFi LaFeles said :
As it's Friday night I'm taking time out from viewing these contemptible vids (aye but OK keep on accusing me of not watching them if that makes you feel better ... and it comes as no surprise you watch many, many of them since they are there to titillate and reel in the unwary) - and I'm off to do nicer thing for a few hours. Who are you watching? Which channels? Maybe you're just watching all the wrong auditors?

Who is your most favorite or least favorite auditor?

Who do you think is too aggressive? Who do you think needs to be more assertive?

Who do you think is informed about the laws, and who do you think doesn't know the laws?


I'd love to hear what you think about specific auditors. I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!

05-Mar-2021 18:07:44 - Last edited on 05-Mar-2021 18:37:54 by NexOrigin

Rooh said :
NexOrigin said :
You can't make someone look bad on camera.
Yes you can. Getting in someone's face with a camera and provoking them isn't going to bring out the best in anyone. That's just going to make you look bad, not the other person. That's why most respectable auditors don't do that, because it makes them look bad. Most respectable auditors show up, stand out of the way, and film silently (or talk to the camera), and wait to see if something happens. They don't show up and start shoving cameras into people's faces chanting "rights! rights! rights!". lol.

Sure, some auditors aren't very good, and they act disrespectful and they shove their cameras at people, or yell at people, but, most people aren't interested in seeing that, and they don't get the views, and people leave nasty comments on their videos about how disgraceful their audits are. Those auditors don't last very long, and even if they persist, unless they change, they don't get followers. The auditors that are respectful, know what they're doing, etc, are the ones who have hundreds of thousands of followers, and millions of viewers.





Rooh said :
NexOrigin said :
Banning them would mean that public photography is a crime.
Think about it.

You want to criminalize the act of public photography. You want to make it illegal to test one's liberties.
The true test of liberty is the right to test it.
If it's illegal to test your liberties, then you have no liberties.

Again, that's not what I said.
I said that it would just be playing into their hands to do so, they could "play the martyr".
Sorry, I meant "you" in a general sense, not you specifically. Sorry, it was meant more like "people who want auditing to be banned". That's my fault, I wordered it baderly. I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!

05-Mar-2021 18:18:21

Rooh said :
NexOrigin said :
Funny how that's becoming a trend here. People who don't watch the videos claiming that they know what the videos are about. LOL
I didn't say I hadn't watched any. I have.
I said I hadn't watched many because they annoy me. Big difference. I didn't say you hadn't watched any. I said you "don't watch the videos" because you don't watch them, not that you haven't watched any, but that you "don't watch the videos". Big difference.

They aren't your genre, you don't like them, you don't watch them, but think you know what they're all about.


Rooh said :
NexOrigin said :
Do you honestly believe that someone needs to be "qualified" somehow to engage in their constitutional rights?
No, you don't need to be qualified to have an agenda and harass people, because, let's face it, that's what many of these videos are. For auditing to be fair and effective it needs to be done by people who actually know what they're talking about. What do you mean by "harassment"? You can't just use words without knowing what they mean.

And what is it that you think you actually need to know in order to engage in a constitutionally protected activity?

Do you know why almost all of the lawsuits regarding public photography are won? Because it's a simple constitutional right that any reasonable person should understand. You have the right to photograph anything you can see from a public space. That's it. It's so simple. There isn't anything more that you need to know other than "you have the right to photograph" if you're standing on a public sidewalk.

But even with all that aside, if you actually watched audit videos on a regular basis, watching different auditors, you would start to realize that many of them know the law very well. Take James Madison, for example. He's an ex-cop. He knows both sides. I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!

05-Mar-2021 18:32:34

Bored with this now so cba.

Final answer ... to above question : I don't have a 'favourite' - I hold them all in equal contempt.

See? No prejudices going on there

Le Chat Guerrier

Bwian's Towel & Grief Shop

06-Mar-2021 09:24:45

07-Mar-2021 02:23:55 - Last edited on 07-Mar-2021 02:24:16 by Averia Light