Stundie Finals For March - Vote Now!

[Mobyseven]

First, a disclaimer: These have been massively pruned down. To get the final twenty from the total number of nominations took a lot of work (these twenty are taken from sixty semi-finalists that had already gone through two screening and sorting processes), and I had to apply some rules to the nominations.

First, as I already stated - no link or screenshot meant an automatic out. Sorry to all those who posted quotes that fall into that category - I don't doubt that they were real, but with the massive number of nominations they had to be the first to go...

Second - and possibly more controversial - you will notice that each person nominated has only one nomination. That means that for all of WithoutRight's and scooby's attempts to flood out The Stundies, only one of each's nominations has made it through to the finals. Otherwise I could have made up an entire list based just on those two and Killtown. And it was no easy task to choose the best quote - as I type this, I've just changed one of the quotes again at the last minute.

Some people may be annoyed at this as it means that the quote they nominated or their favourite quote didn't make it through. But reading through the quotes that have been nominated I'm sure we can all agree that stupidity was the real winner today.

Link and whatnot are in the original nominations thread for those interested. So without further ado - the nominees!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


STUNDIE FINALS FOR MARCH

-1-

Nominated by Kent1

A team of 6 guys could wire both buildings in 2 weeks time.

The naval demolition teams operate in 6 man teams, I saw a documentary where

they wired an entire aircraft carrier in 2 days. The USS Oriskany was 904 feet

long, so similar to the towers.



-2-

Nominated by apathoid

[From a no-plane thread...Killtown has trouble understanding the limits of the internet; context provided]

If you watch a normal video (not an internet video) of the plane hitting, you will see that after the plane 'disappears' there is in fact a cloud of shredded plane skin falling downward outside of the building on the same side that it hit.

link to a "normal" video?


-3-

Nominated by chipmunk stew

[Rosie comments on a breakthrough in the field of metallurgy...]

I do believe it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel


-4-

Nominated by The Doc

We all cherry pick our evidence.


-5-

Nominated by Mobyseven

have you guys noticed that the people who are against the "conspiracy theory" have posts that are, like, pages and pages long...

the common sense posts are pretty short



-6-

Nominated by maccy

[28th Kingdom has a theory about Killtown...]

I think Killtown is a shill... but he doesn't even know it. He's under such a massive mind-control (lots of implants - basically half man / half machine) ... that he actually thinks he's helping the Truth Movement...



-7-

Nominated by Gravy

It's a mater of how you define the word building


-8-

Nominated by Horatius

Ha...that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As an investigator, you would startt with the fact that THEIR WAS A MURDER, and then figure out how it was done in hopes you find a lead towards a suspect. So, you should START with the fact that WTC7 WAS A DEMOLITION and work from there.


-9-

Nominated by Myriad

[Our very own HeyLerow stumbles in the line of duty and provides us with our first debunker-nomination for a Stundie...]

Umm, by my math, sound will traverse a two mile distance in under a quarter-second.



-10-

Nominated by Mobyseven

Loose Change's existence IS critical thinking.



-11-

Nominated by Dave Rogers

[David Ray Griffin discovers that energy is a vector...]

...gravitational energy, which is vertical...


-12-

Nominated by Gravy

It all hinges on the collapse of the towers - 3 steel frame buildings, effectively huge springs, shattered like glass in seconds - an event that could not occur without the use of explosives.


-13-

Nominated by Pardalis

Perhaps they didn't want the plane to hit the pentagon because they wanted more control over the damage since no catastrophic destruction of the entire building was planned.


-14-

Nominated by tacodaemon

[On page 5 of a 43-page PDF sent to NIST dated March 16, adeptly disproving NIST's statement that "Within 12s, the collapse of WTC1 had left nothing but rubble."]

What rubble?


-15-

Nominated by Horatius

If 2 pigeons collided into the towers and they collasped, a group of peer reviewed analysists could scientifically explain that as well if it ment they HAD to find some explanation.


-16-

Nominated by Gravy

[pagan has an idea of what may have hit the Pentagon...]

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit.


-17-

Nominated by WildCat

Evidence is not facts.


-18-

Nominated by chipmunk stew

The burdon of proof should be on you. A plane hit the south tower? Dozens of people videotaped? Prove it.


-19-

Nominated by Firestone

[Micpsi know the reason WTC7 was destroyed...]

Also, the building could not be left standing with all those explosives hanging around!


-20-

Nominated by chippy

[Roscoe devises an experiment to test the WTC collapse that you can do in your own kitchen...]

Try this.

Stack four eggs one on top of the other. Glue them together and make a tower out

of them. Ensure the structure is stable and will not topple.

Now break the top egg. Hit it with your spoon and similate an aircraft hitting

it.

Will the three eggs below the top egg break all the way to the floor?

No because the mass of the top egg will be difused and free to deflect around

the shells of the lower eggs.

Exactly like the towers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important - Abbreviations for the poll:

ECK: Eckolaker
KLT: Killtown
RoD: Rosie O'Donnell
SCG: Skepticalcriticalguy
SB1: superbuick1
28K: 28th Kingdom
CR7: Christopher7
RXD: Roxdog
Hey: HeyLeroy
TSH: TrueSoundHound
DRG: David Ray Griffin
SBY: scooby
Lyt: Lyte Trip
DJW: Dr. Judy Wood
NkJ: NickJ1234
pgn: pagan
WoR: Without Rights
TS4: Truthseeker1234
MCP: Micpsi
RSC: Roscoe

Poll will close on 2nd May 2007 at 10:34 AM (Australian Eastern Standard Time)

[Totovader]

Ah man, my retard didn't make it on the list...

[R.Mackey]

Mine didn't either, but man, with competition like that, it's no surprise.

[Mobyseven]

Ah man, my retard didn't make it on the list...

If it makes you feel any better, he made the shortlist...I remember the comment that came with your nomination. :p

[LashL]

I had to vote for the "egg experiment".

Just trying to visualize stacking four eggs one on top of the other and gluing them together to make a "tower" of them and trying to "ensure the structure is stable and will not topple" had me giggling.

Then the idea of hitting the top egg with a spoon to "similate [sic]" an aircraft hitting one of the WTC towers had me chortling.

But saying that this is "exactly like the towers" had me laughing so hard that Dr. Pepper came out my nose.

[Pardalis]

Man, this one is so difficult.

Which to choose, which to choose...:eusa_think:

[Elizabeth I]

It was a tough call between "Evidence is not facts" and the egg experiment.

One thing I did wonder - should you say "clunkity-clunk" when you hit the egg?

- - - - - - - - - - -
ETA: Thanks, Mobyseven, for putting the poll together.

[chipmunk stew]

Man, that was tough. In the end I went with Rosie because she said it not once but twice, and because she's a prominent media figure who should know better than to utter something so Stundilicious. Although I admit that the timing of her nomination and the fact that I nominated her probably biased my final vote.

[Pardalis]

I finally chose Chris' " It's a mater of how you define the word building".

Short and sweet, and completely out of left field... The only thing is that I think he really lives in the left field.

[LashL]

One thing I did wonder - should you say "clunkity-clunk" when you hit the egg?

:dl:


ETA: Thanks, Mobyseven, for putting the poll together.

Ditto that. Thanks, Mobyseven!

[stateofgrace]

It's not fair none of my nominations made the final, mind you after seeing finalists, it is hardly surprising.

I voted for the eggs.

[NickUK]

Thanks for the hard work M7.

There's some beauties in there, but my vote has to go for the latest cause célèbre (de liste 'b'), Mz O'Donnell.

[Babbylonian]

Superbuick1 gets my vote for encapsulating the primary problem with CTers presenting their "evidence" and for doing so in a delicious coating of irony.

[humingbrd]

Tough choices, but the elegant symmetry of Roxdog's quote... just stunning. Reminds me of something one of Mark Twain's characters would have said.

[boloboffin]

For me, it came down to "What rubble?" and "A plane hit the south tower? Dozens of people videotaped? Prove it." Both are slobberknockers of denial, but the volume of rubble over a few dozen DVDs of home videos is just that much more unavoidable.

[Brainache]

I voted for Rosie. Mostly because I'd love to see someone present her with the award on her TV show. Maybe the cute blonde Bush lover could be asked to do the honours.

[Mobyseven]

It was a tough call between "Evidence is not facts" and the egg experiment.

One thing I did wonder - should you say "clunkity-clunk" when you hit the egg?

- - - - - - - - - - -
ETA: Thanks, Mobyseven, for putting the poll together.

If you don't say "clunkity-clunk" it won't work properly. Geez, learn your fizikz.

No problem about putting it together by the way - it was actually rather amusing (if quite difficult and time consuming). But definately worth it in the end. I'll leave it open to volunteers - if anyone wants to take on organising April, that's fine with me. Otherwise I'm more than happy to take it on again.

And now - for your enjoyment, may I present The Best of Stundie - March Edition!!! Quotes from our namesake that were sadly not eligable for the main prize...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST OF STUNDIE - MARCH EDITION


-1-

Submitted by HeyLeroy


You cannot accuse me of being immune to changing opinions, because I actually believed the official story and changed my opinions based on facts which I never discovered or learned about.


-2-

Submitted by HeyLeroy


If I fail to understand, then it's your fault for not explaining it in a way that makes sense.


-3-

Submitted by Horatius

Well you claimed "To a man" means everyone. Man is a singular, men is the plural! So it would suggets they are talking about an individual! However, if you would like them to explain how they got "To a Man" as to meaning everyone, then you feel free to contact them.


-4-

Submitted by defaultdotxbe

When you talk to one debonker, you've spoken to them all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gravy]

I went with "evidence is not facts," but it could have easily been several others. Meanwhile, Stundie continues to prove that his crown is safe.

[defaultdotxbe]

despite him winning february i had to vote for killtown, because his quote is so perfectly consistant with what i believe to be his honest perception of reality

[rwguinn]

I had to go with the egg, 'cus he could have gotten it right with a little effort

[Mr.D]

Judy Wood, no question.

It's short, self-debunking and best of all it's not a quick off-the-cuff drive-by internet forum post. It's in a legal document filed challenging the NIST report.

Using "fishing in a barrel" terms, this is going dynamite fishing.

In the barrel.


And the fish in the barrel is the one throwing the dynamite.




And the dynamite is a suitcase nuke.

[Dave Rogers]

Glad to see my DRG nomination made it, but on reflection I think it's too much of a physics geek comment to win. I had to go for Rosie - such totally inspired stupidity deserves recognition.

Dave

[Ove]

The one about fire melting steel IS my favourite. How on earth does the guy think Steel is made.


:dl:

[barium]

I had to vote for scooby, I just love people who try using cartoon physics in the real world.

[Anti-sophist]

That is such a stunning collection. Best month so far, to be honest.

I voted for Rosie for obvious reasons but my heart was with "It's a matter of how you define the word building"

[ref]

Eggs for me.

[Minadin]

I wanted to vote for HeyLeroy, just to give a non-truther a shot at a Stundie for once. But, in the end, his mistake is just a math error, which he readily admitted when it was pointed out to him. Many (many) of the other quotes up there are just glaring examples of faulty logic or complete lack of understanding of the subject.

The Rosie quote on fire never melting steel was tempting, as was the egg-smashing example, or C7's question on the definition of a "building" (we often spent long hours discussing what the definition of architecture was, back when I was in school; I don't recall ever wondering about the definition of a building) but in the end, I decided to go with RoxDog's quote, from above:

Ha...that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As an investigator, you would startt with the fact that THEIR WAS A MURDER, and then figure out how it was done in hopes you find a lead towards a suspect. So, you should START with the fact that WTC7 WAS A DEMOLITION and work from there.

Because, it's just so illustrative of the fact that the people who are questioning the investigation have no idea whatsoever how an actual investigation is conducted, or even how to logically come to a valid conclusion based on known facts and evidence. (bonus points for poor grammar / spelling)

[HeyLeroy]

I had to vote for myself; this hair shirt is getting itchy.

[ihaunter]

I voted for Rosie mostly out of nostalgia. Remembering back when 99% of the CTists that came here would argue through rote memorization of the same crud that had been debunked over and over again. Occassionally, one of the little parrots would make a mistake in their memorization and someone here would mull over the fact that we know their arguments better than they do.

You all remember, don't you?


It was last week.:D

[Mobyseven]

The one about fire melting steel IS my favourite. How on earth does the guy think Steel is made.


:dl:

Rosie O'Donnell is a guy?

Once again the number of women in the truth movement has been dramatically slashed...

[Mobyseven]

I had to vote for myself; this hair shirt is getting itchy.

Hehe...no offense to you, and I know that you immediately recognised the error when it was pointed out to you (Hell, have you seen some of the mistakes I've made here?)

But you were nominated, and gosh-darnit if you weren't so sure that you'd debunked yet another silly truther quote when you said it...enjoy the fame that comes with being a nominee!

[William Rea]

First, a disclaimer: These have been massively pruned down. To get the final twenty from the total number of nominations took a lot of work (these twenty are taken from sixty semi-finalists that had already gone through two screening and sorting processes), and I had to apply some rules to the nominations.

First, as I already stated - no link or screenshot meant an automatic out. Sorry to all those who posted quotes that fall into that category - I don't doubt that they were real, but with the massive number of nominations they had to be the first to go...

Second - and possibly more controversial - you will notice that each person nominated has only one nomination. That means that for all of WithoutRight's and scooby's attempts to flood out The Stundies, only one of each's nominations has made it through to the finals. Otherwise I could have made up an entire list based just on those two and Killtown. And it was no easy task to choose the best quote - as I type this, I've just changed one of the quotes again at the last minute.

Some people may be annoyed at this as it means that the quote they nominated or their favourite quote didn't make it through. But reading through the quotes that have been nominated I'm sure we can all agree that stupidity was the real winner today.

Link and whatnot are in the original nominations thread for those interested. So without further ado - the nominees!



I didn't vote because the whole concept is simply a flame.

There are at least 2 ad hominems in there which blows the cover story I have been given that the "Stundies" are about showing lack of scientific understanding.

[HeyLeroy]

Hehe...no offense to you, and I know that you immediately recognised the error when it was pointed out to you (Hell, have you seen some of the mistakes I've made here?)

But you were nominated, and gosh-darnit if you weren't so sure that you'd debunked yet another silly truther quote when you said it...enjoy the fame that comes with being a nominee!

Gosh, anyone else feel a draft?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197454770e6069b1.gif

[William Rea]

The one about fire melting steel IS my favourite. How on earth does the guy think Steel is made.

Steel isn't made in furnaces fired by kerosene to my knowledge.

[defaultdotxbe]

Steel isn't made in furnaces fired by kerosene to my knowledge.
except rosie didnt say anything about kerosene, she just said "its the first time in history that fire has melted steel"

[Loss Leader]

Evidence is not facts? Evidence is not facts?

I hope that one wins. Forget misunderstanding science or engineering or politics or law - Without Rights misunderstands words.

[Brainster]

It was a tough call between "Evidence is not facts" and the egg experiment.

One thing I did wonder - should you say "clunkity-clunk" when you hit the egg?

I think Cluckity-cluck is more appropriate.

:chicken: :chicken:

I had to vote for that one; the only think lacking is the photographic evidence.

[Mobyseven]

I didn't vote because the whole concept is simply a flame.

Words cannot describe how little I care. Why would you bother posting in this thread at all?

There are at least 2 ad hominems in there which blows the cover story I have been given that the "Stundies" are about showing lack of scientific understanding.

Please list "at least 2 ad hominems" so that you can enlighten us as to them.

There were many nominations for scooby, WithoutRights and Killtown. I could have in fact made a poll entirely from those nominations, which were of course things that they themselves have said. It is not ad hominem for me to state that if I hadn't limited it to one nomination for each individual they would have flooded the field.

The Stundies are about lack of scientific understanding, yes. They are also about misuse of logic, logical fallacies, inability to understand basic concepts, and so on, and so on.

If you have a problem, don't participate. Just don't bother putting pointless posts in a thread that is supposed to be a bit of fun.

[Mobyseven]

Gosh, anyone else feel a draft?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197454770e6069b1.gif

...I don't get it... :(

[LashL]

...I don't get it... :(

I took that as a friendly cyber-mooning from HeyLeroy as a humorous response to your post, Moby :)

[Brainache]

...I don't get it... :(

I think HeyLeroy is em-bare-assed.

[Mobyseven]

I took that as a friendly cyber-mooning from HeyLeroy as a humorous response to your post, Moby :)

I thought as much, but didn't get the draft comment.

Wait...

...

...

...

...now I do.

[Mince]

I want to re-vote. I voted for 9. Sound that travels faster than sound, because I thought that was the actual quotation, which would have been quite funny. But it turns out it was not the quotation, just the poll creator's summary.

I don't know if it can be done, but I want to recall my vote for 9. and resubmit it for 17. WoR - "Evidence is not facts."

[apathoid]

Whew, this is a tough call but I have to go with Dr. Wood's "What rubble?" for two reasons. One - she's posing this question to NIST, and two - she is still the "Truth" movement's most qualified individual to opine on building collapses.

[Mobyseven]

I want to re-vote. I voted for 9. Sound that travels faster than sound, because I thought that was the actual quotation, which would have been quite funny. But it turns out it was not the quotation, just the poll creator's summary.

I don't know if it can be done, but I want to recall my vote for 9. and resubmit it for 17. WoR - "Evidence is not facts."

Unfortunately I don't think this can be done.

This is why you should always read the post before you vote on the poll (unless otherwise stated).

Figuring out abbreviations was tough, and I didn't have much time to do it.

[Ove]

Rosie O'Donnell is a guy?

Once again the number of women in the truth movement has been dramatically slashed...

Ooops, didn't notice the name ;) the stupidity of the remark made me forget everything else.... ;

[Mobyseven]

Ooops, didn't notice the name ;) the stupidity of the remark made me forget everything else.... ;

I'm willing to forgive you, because it appears you're a Dane, which means you must have delicious pastry...right? :p

[William Rea]

Words cannot describe how little I care. Why would you bother posting in this thread at all?

Words cannot describe how little I care about you not caring.

The whole concept of this thread is no more noble in its aspirations than my recent thread nominating "Botties", except that the "Stundies" are officially endorsed. Unless another off the cuff rule has been made I believe I am allowed to post in here so I choose to do so to point out the hypocrisy. Just like those who could have chosen to not bother to post in the "Botties" nominations.

Please list "at least 2 ad hominems" so that you can enlighten us as to them.

There were many nominations for scooby, WithoutRights and Killtown. I could have in fact made a poll entirely from those nominations, which were of course things that they themselves have said. It is not ad hominem for me to state that if I hadn't limited it to one nomination for each individual they would have flooded the field.

The Stundies are about lack of scientific understanding, yes. They are also about misuse of logic, logical fallacies, inability to understand basic concepts, and so on, and so on.

If you have a problem, don't participate. Just don't bother putting pointless posts in a thread that is supposed to be a bit of fun.

Yes, a bit of fun, except that there is no sense of humour when the nominations are pointing out the shortcomings of the self proclaimed "skeptics", hypocrisy.

I'll give you an example of one ad hominem from your list which you can then apply to the others too see if you are really capable of spotting "lack of scientific understanding, misuse of logic, logical fallacies, inability to understand basic concepts, and stuff" (my paraphrasing). I don't think you will because really, beneath the surface this is about ad hominem and nothing to do with your stated aims.

Starter for 10.

"Killtown wants a link to non-internet video."

Ignorance of internet video formats is not an argument against any of Killtowns assertions, this is a plain and simple ad hominem attacking the person instead of his arguments. I read Killtown's quote which admittedly is a bit clumsy and I interpret it as saying that he wants video which has not been compressed for internet bit streaming and will therefore be clearer. This could be transferred by bit torrent over the internet.

Hold on, isn't this the same issue that you all gave Christophera a hard time over?

Hey Christophera the image resolution is very poor so how can you extract facts from it. Hypocrisy.

[Whiplash]

Why William... If I didn't know any better, I would think that this really, really gets under your skin.

[William Rea]

Why William... If I didn't know any better, I would think that this really, really gets under your skin.

It takes more than the amateurs in this forum to get under my skin. Just having some fun in a fun thread!

[Mobyseven]

Words cannot describe how little I care about you not caring.

I was thinking I might post something witty here in response to your well thought out counter-riposte, but I'm afraid that with the level of maturity you're showing that it could turn into a who's-the-smartest-amoeba-in-the-petri-dish competition...lets leave it there with that one, aye?

The whole concept of this thread is no more noble in its aspirations than my recent thread nominating "Botties", except that the "Stundies" are officially endorsed.

The Stundies are only seemingly recognised as 'endorsed' (they are in fact NOT endorsed) because the process that brought them into existence was one where the entire community put in some effort to shape the awards as they are. They are still evolving in terms of any rules, etc that may be applied.

Your "Botties" were simply a rip off of the Stundie concept because for some reason you think that pointing out some of the ridiculous mistakes that are made by some members of the truth movement constitutes an ad hominem attack.

See, The Stundies evolved from a thread (you can find it if you do a search) which was simply asking for the best 'truther' quotes for January 2007. As the thread progressed people added input and it was eventually decided that we would vote for a winner, and it was decided that the award would be called "Teh 28th Annual Stundie Awards". The speech and award design came in March and February respectively.

Your "Botties" were thought up by one person (you), you gave no rules or conditions on what was being nominated, and in the end it really just made you look like a bit of a twat...

Unless another off the cuff rule has been made I believe I am allowed to post in here so I choose to do so to point out the hypocrisy. Just like those who could have chosen to not bother to post in the "Botties" nominations.

The hypocrisy? You didn't actually point very much out in your first post - you just made unsubstantiated claims and boosted your post count by one. It seems to be a common link that ties your posts together: Not much substance, just complaints.

I'll give you an example of one ad hominem from your list which you can then apply to the others too see if you are really capable of spotting "lack of scientific understanding, misuse of logic, logical fallacies, inability to understand basic concepts, and stuff" (my paraphrasing). I don't think you will because really, beneath the surface this is about ad hominem and nothing to do with your stated aims.

Nice way of dodging my request. I ask for two (when you said there were at least two), you give me one. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?

Starter for 10.

"Killtown wants a link to non-internet video."

Ignorance of internet video formats is not an argument against any of Killtowns assertions, this is a plain and simple ad hominem attacking the person instead of his arguments. I read Killtown's quote which admittedly is a bit clumsy and I interpret it as saying that he wants video which has not been compressed for internet bit streaming and will therefore be clearer. This could be transferred by bit torrent over the internet.

Which certainly shows that your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. The context surrounding the quote shows that the person Killtown is replying to is specifically referring to a non-internet video (a "normal" video). Killtown then requested a link to such a video.

This is not rocket science. And not only was that not a very smart thing to say, but it speaks directly to the heart of the truth movement research ethos - i.e. "Google it." Most of the 'evidence' the truth movement puts forward is unsupported conjecture based on poor video analysis. That Killtown is a rather prolific online author and is supposedly a 'researcher', and yet can make such a terrible and obvious gaff without realising it speaks wonders.

Hold on, isn't this the same issue that you all gave Christophera a hard time over?

Hey Christophera the image resolution is very poor so how can you extract facts from it. Hypocricy.

Christophera is a very sick individual, and I don't mean that in a harsh sense. After a few months of posting here many of the members started to think that something wasn't quite right with him, and it seems we were correct. Christophera believes among other things that the WTC towers 1 and 2 had solid reinforced concrete cores, that the buildings had been prepped for demolition during their construction - he knew this he said because he had spoken with a time-travelling mohawk Indian. He also believed that the numbers 21, 22, and 23 were somehow influencing his life.

So don't try and use the strawman argument that, "Our problem with Christophera was his analysing poor quality video and photographs." Hell, that's a problem that MOST of the truth movement has - but as far as Christophera goes, that was the least of his problems. And next time when you look at a quote, look at the context surrounding it as well - Killtown's meaning is apparent and it is most assuredly not what you are suggesting it is.

So, would you like to try again or will you take back what you said about The Stundies being all about ad hominem attacks?

Or will you silently disappear from this thread?

[chipmunk stew]

The whole concept of this thread is no more noble in its aspirations than my recent thread nominating "Botties", except that the "Stundies" are officially endorsed.
Except that the "Stundies" are not officially endorsed.

[Gravy]

It's Rosie versus an egg. My money's on the egg.

[Unsecured Coins]

which came first again?

[humingbrd]

It takes more than the amateurs in this forum to get under my skin. Just having some fun in a fun thread!

When you say you're having fun, why do I see your face looking like Dick Cheney having a discussion with Pat Leahy on the Senate floor?

[Mobyseven]

When you say you're having fun, why do I see your face looking like Dick Cheney having a discussion with Pat Leahy on the Senate floor?

He means he's being deliberately argumentative for no other purpose than it's the only thing he does on these forums.

[Brainache]

I bet Bill Rea is a real hoot at parties.

[humingbrd]

He means he's being deliberately argumentative for no other purpose than it's the only thing he does on these forums.

I have sometimes sympathised with his views; forum discussions can occasionally get so personal that skeptical objectivity is compromised, and that's unfortunate. Not at all unusual in an anonymous, open forum dealing with controversial topics, however.

But his manner is snide. Incivility is no way to argue for a more civil discourse.

[HeyLeroy]

...I don't get it... :(I took that as a friendly cyber-mooning from HeyLeroy as a humorous response to your post, Moby :)

Yep! I put my foot in my mouth. Just my way of saying I can take it.

I want to re-vote. I voted for 9. Sound that travels faster than sound, because I thought that was the actual quotation, which would have been quite funny. But it turns out it was not the quotation, just the poll creator's summary.

I don't know if it can be done, but I want to recall my vote for 9. and resubmit it for 17. WoR - "Evidence is not facts."

NO FAIR! A VOTE CAST IS A VOTE CAST!! I'M UP TO THREE!!! W00T!!!!

[Trigood]

OK, this is hard. Really, really hard. As I read the list, I keep thinking each one is better (worse) than the previous.

But I have to go with NickJ's paeon to the Troofer Scientific Method (or at least, what they think it is):

Originally Posted by NickJ1234
If 2 pigeons collided into the towers and they collasped, a group of peer reviewed analysists could scientifically explain that as well if it ment they HAD to find some explanation.This quote shows a willful* misunderstanding of what the scientific method is about, which is taking the known and inferred facts and working from there.

In other words, you can posit any sequence of events, but if they didn't happen, they didn't happen... and there's no need for "peer reviewed analysists [sic]" to think about them.

Extra whipped cream with a cherry on top for the egregious spelling errors.

P.S. I must admit, Judy Wood was a very close runner-up. :D


*I almost said "almost willful," but let's just tell it like it is here.

[William Rea]

I was thinking I might post something witty here in response to your well thought out counter-riposte, but I'm afraid that with the level of maturity you're showing that it could turn into a who's-the-smartest-amoeba-in-the-petri-dish competition...lets leave it there with that one, aye?

I smile to myself when people suddenly make a dash for the high ground after displaying the very trait they suddenly find so undesirable. I can leave it at that one because I believe it would be such a mentally onerous task for you use your wit, aye?

The Stundies are only seemingly recognised as 'endorsed' (they are in fact NOT endorsed) because the process that brought them into existence was one where the entire community put in some effort to shape the awards as they are. They are still evolving in terms of any rules, etc that may be applied.

Your "Botties" were simply a rip off of the Stundie concept because for some reason you think that pointing out some of the ridiculous mistakes that are made by some members of the truth movement constitutes an ad hominem attack.

Obviously, I hadn't realised that you had copyrighted the awards concept, if I had known I wouldn't have infringed it, contact my lawyer. The "Stundies" are endorsed by the default position that no action has been taken against such an obvious flaming tool.

People make mistakes, language gets mixed up in the heat of posts, it's called being human. Using those errors to undermine a person and hence their argument is ad hominem. You can dance around it with semantics as you please, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then a duck it is!

See, The Stundies evolved from a thread (you can find it if you do a search) which was simply asking for the best 'truther' quotes for January 2007. As the thread progressed people added input and it was eventually decided that we would vote for a winner, and it was decided that the award would be called "Teh 28th Annual Stundie Awards". The speech and award design came in March and February respectively.

Your "Botties" were thought up by one person (you), you gave no rules or conditions on what was being nominated, and in the end it really just made you look like a bit of a twat...

I can live with looking a bit of a twat every now and then, it reminds me to take my head out of my @rse and look around. I expected the outcome I got from the "Botties" up to a point but the ferocity of the attacks alarmed me. I didn't realise so many people had gotten their heads so lodged up their own @rses that they wouldn't be able to extricate them at all.

The history lesson was unnecessary since I don't care much about how the "Stundies" came into being.

The hypocrisy? You didn't actually point very much out in your first post - you just made unsubstantiated claims and boosted your post count by one. It seems to be a common link that ties your posts together: Not much substance, just complaints.

Nice way of dodging my request. I ask for two (when you said there were at least two), you give me one. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?

This response answered my question for me. I gave you one example to go away and learn from and you either didn't want to learn or aren't capable.

Which certainly shows that your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. The context surrounding the quote shows that the person Killtown is replying to is specifically referring to a non-internet video (a "normal" video). Killtown then requested a link to such a video.

This is not rocket science. And not only was that not a very smart thing to say, but it speaks directly to the heart of the truth movement research ethos - i.e. "Google it." Most of the 'evidence' the truth movement puts forward is unsupported conjecture based on poor video analysis. That Killtown is a rather prolific online author and is supposedly a 'researcher', and yet can make such a terrible and obvious gaff without realising it speaks wonders.



Christophera is a very sick individual, and I don't mean that in a harsh sense. After a few months of posting here many of the members started to think that something wasn't quite right with him, and it seems we were correct. Christophera believes among other things that the WTC towers 1 and 2 had solid reinforced concrete cores, that the buildings had been prepped for demolition during their construction - he knew this he said because he had spoken with a time-travelling mohawk Indian. He also believed that the numbers 21, 22, and 23 were somehow influencing his life.

So don't try and use the strawman argument that, "Our problem with Christophera was his analysing poor quality video and photographs." Hell, that's a problem that MOST of the truth movement has - but as far as Christophera goes, that was the least of his problems. And next time when you look at a quote, look at the context surrounding it as well - Killtown's meaning is apparent and it is most assuredly not what you are suggesting it is.

So, would you like to try again or will you take back what you said about The Stundies being all about ad hominem attacks?

Or will you silently disappear from this thread?

Is it a strawman because you didn't accuse Christophera of analysing poor quality video or was it the least of his problems? You have to decide which one because the two positions you take are contradictory. I didn't make any other argument than the poor video quality one.

I will not retract the ad hominem accusation simply because it is the truth.

[William Rea]

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

Obviously the WTC wall is not a giant solid smooth mass. Strangely in the video, it seems so. Why?

Because this video was recorded by who-knows what camera (could have even been a crappy one, such as a camcorder), I doubt the person who recorded gave the original footage to the person who posted it on the internet, so most likely he recorded it from a TV. After that, he send it to the computer. After that he compressed it by an enormous degree to allow fast internet replay. And after that it was posted on YouTube (or GoogleVideo) where it looses even more resolution. And after that someone made a screen capture of the already crappy footage and in most cases blew up the image to focus on the plane.

If you know about videos and graphics, you'll know that every step of the translation of the recording makes the video loose resolution. So the NPTers are basing their "evidence" on already faulty videos.

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

================================================== =

Seems like a reasonable response to me, especially considering the inverted commas around the word normal.

[William Rea]

I have sometimes sympathised with his views; forum discussions can occasionally get so personal that skeptical objectivity is compromised, and that's unfortunate. Not at all unusual in an anonymous, open forum dealing with controversial topics, however.

But his manner is snide. Incivility is no way to argue for a more civil discourse.

How do you surmise my manner is snide? Or do you really mean I refuse to comply with the status quo?

[humingbrd]

How do you surmise my manner is snide? Or do you really mean I refuse to comply with the status quo?

The "Botties" isn't snide?

[William Rea]

The "Botties" isn't snide?

It wasn't the intention, I just don't know how you deduced snide from it?

The main intention was to get some people on here to wake up to what a disgrace this fourm is to the "skeptic" community. It merely served to feed their ravenous appetites, and they learned nothing!

[rwguinn]

It wasn't the intention, I just don't know how you deduced snide from it?

The main intention was to get some people on here to wake up to what a disgrace this fourm is to the "skeptic" community. It merely served to feed their ravenous appetites, and they learned nothing!
Vote, or start another thread. You're way off-topic.

[William Rea]

Vote, or start another thread. You're way off-topic.

Actually, by the standard set by you guys on my "Bottie" Nominations thread we have a long way to go before we get "off topic" enough for this forum.

I think I am exactly on topic, so who died and put you in charge?

[uk_dave]

Words cannot describe how little I care about you not caring.

The whole concept of this thread is no more noble in its aspirations than my recent thread nominating "Botties", except that the "Stundies" are officially endorsed. Unless another off the cuff rule has been made I believe I am allowed to post in here so I choose to do so to point out the hypocrisy. Just like those who could have chosen to not bother to post in the "Botties" nominations.



Yes, a bit of fun, except that there is no sense of humour when the nominations are pointing out the shortcomings of the self proclaimed "skeptics", hypocrisy.

I'll give you an example of one ad hominem from your list which you can then apply to the others too see if you are really capable of spotting "lack of scientific understanding, misuse of logic, logical fallacies, inability to understand basic concepts, and stuff" (my paraphrasing). I don't think you will because really, beneath the surface this is about ad hominem and nothing to do with your stated aims.

Starter for 10.

"Killtown wants a link to non-internet video."

Ignorance of internet video formats is not an argument against any of Killtowns assertions, this is a plain and simple ad hominem attacking the person instead of his arguments. I read Killtown's quote which admittedly is a bit clumsy and I interpret it as saying that he wants video which has not been compressed for internet bit streaming and will therefore be clearer. This could be transferred by bit torrent over the internet.

Hold on, isn't this the same issue that you all gave Christophera a hard time over?

Hey Christophera the image resolution is very poor so how can you extract facts from it. Hypocrisy.

You actually took the time to type all that and edit it?

You do realise those are two hours you'll never get back, right?

[Hyperviolet]

Had to be the Killtown quote. That is priceless.

[William Rea]

You actually took the time to type all that and edit it?

You do realise those are two hours you'll never get back, right?

Says the man with over 2000 posts to his name?

[uk_dave]

Says the man with over 2000 posts to his name?

And every one a winner.

ETA: Apart from that one about the Nun and the chocolate knickers....and the one about Paris hilton and the paris hilton...

[William Rea]

And every one a winner.

Nice come back :) .

[Whiplash]

It wasn't the intention, I just don't know how you deduced snide from it?


The point of your "botties" thread was that certain people were simply "robots" for our side, mindless drones who parot the official line, etc.

You were directly attacking people here as being mindless fools. How is that not snide?

And to act like that thread was just a mirror of these.. You may have had a point if you actually had done the work to present that thread in the same manner. With actual quotes to vote on, quotes that could be considered *evidence* for your view that these people were just mindless bots. But you did no such thing. It was just a childish "I know you are but what am I" type attack. You just threw out the attack without anything to back it up. It was clearly an attempt to "get back at" those who persecute your beloved truthers. This is also evidence of your being snide.

And for someone who isn't really bothered by this, and just having fun, you sure do whinge on about it incessantly. You aren't fooling anyone guy.

[William Rea]

First, a disclaimer: These have been massively pruned down. To get the final twenty from the total number of nominations took a lot of work (these twenty are taken from sixty semi-finalists that had already gone through two screening and sorting processes), and I had to apply some rules to the nominations.

-11-

Nominated by Dave Rogers

[David Ray Griffin discovers that energy is a vector...]


Originally Posted by David Ray Griffin
...gravitational energy, which is vertical...





Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

[William Rea]

The point of your "botties" thread was that certain people were simply "robots" for our side, mindless drones who parot the official line, etc.

You were directly attacking people here. How is that not snide?

And to act like that thread was just a mirror of these.. You may have had a point if you actually had done the work to present that thread in the same manner. With actual quotes to vote on, quotes that could be considered *evidence* for your view that these people were just mindless bots. But you did no such thing. It was just a childish "I know you are but what am I" type attack. You just threw out the attack without anything to back it up. It was clearly an attempt to "get back at" those who persecute your beloved truthers.

And for someone who isn't really bothered by this, and just having fun, you sure do whinge on about it incessantly. You aren't fooling anyone guy. I'm rather embarrassed for you honestly.

I didn't get the chance to compile the quotes to vote on because it was moved. This is a voting thread not a nomination thread so comparison to this is irrelevant.

You are asserting that this "Stundies" nomination and award is not attacking people on here and is not childish in the same manner as my proposed "Botties". At the end of the day as you have indicated in the post above this really is about us and them after all isn't it.

Thanks for the empathy in the last paragraph but it really isn't necessary. The fact that you are now reduced to insincere embarrassment for me speaks volumes about how effective I am being at exposing this disgraceful hypocrisy.

[David Wong]

Man, it's gonna be close between Rosie and Roscoe. Neck and neck right now.

[LashL]

Go, Roscoe!

:D

[Babbylonian]

Man, it's gonna be close between Rosie and Roscoe. Neck and neck right now.
Maybe it will be a tie and we could have William Rea break it!

[HeyLeroy]

I'm up to four votes!
http://liveu-93.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1158893L.gif
W00t!

[chipmunk stew]

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.
Take this quiz (http://www.stmary.ws/physics/home/marys_java/energy/vector_scalar_energy.htm).

He probably meant gravitational force, which is not an uncommon mistake for a layman to make (which is probably why he hasn't gotten any votes yet) but it highlights the fact that he should not be expounding on the physics of building collapses.

[Mobyseven]

I smile to myself when people suddenly make a dash for the high ground after displaying the very trait they suddenly find so undesirable. I can leave it at that one because I believe it would be such a mentally onerous task for you use your wit, aye?

No, I'm the smartest amoeba!

Obviously, I hadn't realised that you had copyrighted the awards concept, if I had known I wouldn't have infringed it, contact my lawyer.

Where in my post did I even remotely suggest that I had "copyrighted the awards concept"?

The "Stundies" are endorsed by the default position that no action has been taken against such an obvious flaming tool.

You're either pulling my leg, or you actually don't know what "endorse" means.

No one on the moderation team is promoting these awards. The reason that no action has been taken is because no forum rules have been broken. It will also be hard for you to justify your stance that this is no more than a "flaming tool", considering that the things we are nominating and voting for are actual assertions, requests, arguments and experiments. If someone feels offended because it has been pointed out that what said was stupid, then perhaps they should stop saying stupid things.

People make mistakes, language gets mixed up in the heat of posts, it's called being human. Using those errors to undermine a person and hence their argument is ad hominem.

Except that none of these nominations are simple language mix ups. In fact, one of the sorting processes I used when deciding which quotes would make the final twenty was I disqualified any posts that were only nominated because of spelling, grammar or punctuation errors.

What you've provided me with here is another example of a strawman argument, and everytime you provide one, I will show it for what it is.

I can live with looking a bit of a twat every now and then, it reminds me to take my head out of my @rse and look around. I expected the outcome I got from the "Botties" up to a point but the ferocity of the attacks alarmed me. I didn't realise so many people had gotten their heads so lodged up their own @rses that they wouldn't be able to extricate them at all.

And what you've provided me with here is a fairly good example of an ad hominem attack. Everytime you provide me with one of these I will show it for what it is also.

The history lesson was unnecessary since I don't care much about how the "Stundies" came into being.

The whole point of that lesson was to explain to you why The Stundies are better received here than your "Bottie" attempt. There is a community history to The Stundies and from a simple beginning they have evolved to have rules and a process (both of which are still evolving to an extent).

One of the rules that has been introduced is, "No ad hominem attacks," by the way. And it was introduced before you started whining.

This response answered my question for me. I gave you one example to go away and learn from and you either didn't want to learn or aren't capable.

So, in other words you can't find any ad hominem attacks, you tried the Killtown nomination because you thought that if you twisted the context around you could make it look like an ad hominem, and now that I've shown that to be false you are pretending to take the intellectual and moral high ground.

I'm willing to be proven wrong here, but if you can't actually point out any ad hominem arguments then I request you withdraw your accusation.

Is it a strawman because you didn't accuse Christophera of analysing poor quality video or was it the least of his problems? You have to decide which one because the two positions you take are contradictory. I didn't make any other argument than the poor video quality one.

Yes, Christophera was using poor quality video and photography in his analysis. But that was not our primary objection to his theory. Your assertation that "...this the same issue that you all gave Christophera a hard time over," is incorrect because it was not the primary issue we had with him.

I will not retract the ad hominem accusation simply because it is the truth.

Thankyou for that bit of emotive language - any logic and reasoning behind that, or will you retract that accusation?

[Mobyseven]

Seems like a reasonable response to me, especially considering the inverted commas around the word normal.

Then you need some remedial reading comprehension classes.

Though I honestly don't believe you actually think this. You don't want to admit you're wrong and you're grasping at straws with this.

[Mobyseven]

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

Energy != Vector

[Mobyseven]

The "Botties" isn't snide?

More childish than anything.

Actually, by the standard set by you guys on my "Bottie" Nominations thread we have a long way to go before we get "off topic" enough for this forum.

I think I am exactly on topic, so who died and put you in charge?

I would say that given all you seem to do is whine and complain, not many people here actually care what you think.

You are off topic, so as you were told - either vote or stop posting here.

[OMGturt1es]

i had to go with eggs. a stack of eggs, taped together, is just like a skyscraper. amazing.

[chipmunk stew]

The "Stundies" are endorsed by the default position that no action has been taken against such an obvious flaming tool.
If you feel that the "Stundies" are in violation of the membership agreement, take it up with the mods (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19).

[Ove]

I'm willing to forgive you, because it appears you're a Dane, which means you must have delicious pastry...right? :p

You mean like this : ;) ;) ;)

[William Rea]

Energy != Vector

Are you saying gravitational energy has no directional sense?

Before you answer the above consider that there are TWO components of Velocity; speed and direction.

Potential or Gravitational energy = mgh where g = acceleration. Acceleration is change in Velocity with time. Change in velocity can occur either by change in speed or direction. Gravitational Energy is derived from forces occuring between the centres of mass of two objects, that is a unidirectional relationship.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2. Velocity has speed and direction.

I would say in this sense that energy has a direction and is therefore able to be represented vectorally. In our world view Potential or Graviatational energy is described vectorally as acting vertically as opposed to horizontally.

QED

[William Rea]

More childish than anything.



I would say that given all you seem to do is whine and complain, not many people here actually care what you think.

You are off topic, so as you were told - either vote or stop posting here.

No, I am firmly on topic, I am disputing your nominations. I have already shown two to be false based upon the general rules you are working too. One of which was a straight ad hominem and the other a simple lack of logical application by the nominees. Would you like me to show the falsehood of the others.

[Dave Rogers]

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

Energy is a scalar. Vertical is a direction. Anyone who doesn't recognise the inapplicability of a direction as an adjective with which to describe a scalar has not even a basic understanding of physics and has no place making comments on whether specific events do or do not contravene the laws of physics. Griffin demonstrates that he falls into this category.

If you don't understand the above, then so do you.

Dave

[William Rea]

Then you need some remedial reading comprehension classes.

Though I honestly don't believe you actually think this. You don't want to admit you're wrong and you're grasping at straws with this.

See that is the difference, you keep telling me I'm wrong and show no evidence to back it up. I have shown you the FULL post that Killtown responded to and placed it in exact context. I have shown that the nomination was not displaying ignorance or logical fallacy.

Much as I dislike Killtown's politics he is not showing ignorance in this post.

[William Rea]

Energy is a scalar. Vertical is a direction. Anyone who doesn't recognise the inapplicability of a direction as an adjective with which to describe a scalar has not even a basic understanding of physics and has no place making comments on whether specific events do or do not contravene the laws of physics. Griffin demonstrates that he falls into this category.

If you don't understand the above, then so do you.

Dave

Reference post #88 above. If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?

[William Rea]

I would say that given all you seem to do is whine and complain, not many people here actually care what you think.

You are off topic, so as you were told - either vote or stop posting here.

So why do so many people seem unable to control themselves and stop answering my posts?

If I go off topic it is mostly because of my replies to the baseless personal attacks, if I am off topic report me to the Mods. I am firmly on topic disputing the basis of the nomination of these awards, 10% of which I have manged to debunk so far.

[Oliver]

It takes more than the amateurs in this forum to get under my skin. Just having some fun in a fun thread!


How could someone have fun without a sense of humor? :confused:

[Brainache]

So why do so many people seem unable to control themselves and stop answering my posts?

If I go off topic it is mostly because of my replies to the baseless personal attacks, if I am off topic report me to the Mods. I am firmly on topic disputing the basis of the nomination of these awards, 10% of which I have manged to debunk so far.

You haven't debunked anything you whinger.
You have whinged about 2 out of 20 examples of Truther stupidity. You have whinged that your "Botties" thread was moved. You have whinged that people responded to your whingeing.

When will you do anything but whinge?

[Dave Rogers]

Reference post #88 above. If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?

It's proportional to the modulus of a vector. And, to be correct, it's gravitational potential energy, which is a well known form of energy and just as much a scalar as, say, chemical energy, nuclear binding energy or kinetic energy (which is of course proportional to the square of the modulus of a vector, unless you want to try somehow to multiply a direction by itself).

I suggest you give up now, rather than make a complete idiot of yourself by insisting that gravitational potential energy is a vector in defiance of the entire pre-existing body of human knowledge.

Dave

[chipmunk stew]

Reference post #88 above. If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?
Gravitational Energy (aka Gravitational Potential Energy, aka Potential Energy) is measured in Joules. Joules are scalar. There simply is no vectoral component to it.

It is dependent on a scalar mass, a vectoral acceleration (g), and a vectoral position (height), but it is not itself vectoral. Energy is not vectoral--ever.

[stilicho]

I had to vote for the huge springs shattered like glass. First, it was in a thread I actually followed before that howler was "sprung" on us. Second, it actually made me "lol", which is something I figure is a prerequisite to an award of such sanctity.

I have heard one similar to the eggs taped end on end on another forum. This other image was that of likening the WTC to a deck of cards separated by four ball bearings (between each card and one at each corner of the 110 card stack).

Anyone ever figured out yet why CT'rs insist that the planes did too little damage at the Pentagon and too much at the WTC?

[William Rea]

It's proportional to the modulus of a vector. And, to be correct, it's gravitational potential energy, which is a well known form of energy and just as much a scalar as, say, chemical energy, nuclear binding energy or kinetic energy (which is of course proportional to the square of the modulus of a vector, unless you want to try somehow to multiply a direction by itself).

I suggest you give up now, rather than make a complete idiot of yourself by insisting that gravitational potential energy is a vector in defiance of the entire pre-existing body of human knowledge.

Dave

Of course you know that vector analysis requires a different set of skills to analyse and resolve for a chosen frame of reference so multiplication of them isn't a useful tool to use. BTW I didn't say Gravitational Potential Energy wasn't scalar I said it acted vectorally. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like.

Just as a change in speed (speed being scalar) is an acceleration so is a change of direction (direction being vectoral), that is about as fundamental in dynamics as it gets, do you grasp that? That is why the man riding the motorcycle on the wall of death in the sideshows doesn't fall when travelling at constant angular velocity, he is accelerating due to a change in direction. If the direction of the velocity changes then there is a change in the acceleration, that is the element you are fundamentally missing. Potential Gravitation Energy is by its nature vectoral, it has no capability to act omnidirectionally without an energy conversion process.

I can only suggest then that you contact Zdenek Bazant and ask him to remove the vectors from his energy analysis of the WTC collapse.

[William Rea]

You haven't debunked anything you whinger.
You have whinged about 2 out of 20 examples of Truther stupidity. You have whinged that your "Botties" thread was moved. You have whinged that people responded to your whingeing.

When will you do anything but whinge?

Is this all you have to contribute to the thread?

Maybe you should be the one taking the advice to vote and stop posting?

[William Rea]

Gravitational Energy (aka Gravitational Potential Energy, aka Potential Energy) is measured in Joules. Joules are scalar. There simply is no vectoral component to it.

It is dependent on a scalar mass, a vectoral acceleration (g), and a vectoral position (height), but it is not itself vectoral. Energy is not vectoral--ever.

J = Kg m^2/s^2

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving an object one metre along the direction of the force.

[Dave Rogers]

Of course you know that vector analysis requires a different set of skills to analyse and resolve for a chosen frame of reference so multiplication of them isn't a useful tool to use.

That was precisely my point, yes.

BTW I didn't say Gravitational Potential Energy wasn't scalar I said it acted vectorally. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like.

OK, let's look at what was written. You said,

"If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?"

A statement of the form, "If A is true then why is B also true when B contradicts A" tends, in normal usage, to imply an assertion on the part of the speaker that A is not in fact true. If you meant something other by the above statement than that gravitational energy is not a scalar, would you like to explain exactly what it was?

Just as a change in speed (speed being scalar) is an acceleration so is a change of direction (direction being vectoral), that is about as fundamental in dynamics as it gets, do you grasp that? That is why the man riding the motorcycle on the wall of death in the sideshows doesn't fall when travelling at constant angular velocity, he is accelerating due to a change in direction. If the direction of the velocity changes then there is a change in the acceleration, that is the element you are fundamentally missing.

Everything you've said there is fine, although you seem to be trying to reply to something I haven't said. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like. And yes, I can do simple vector calculations.

Potential Gravitation Energy is by its nature vectoral, it has no capability to act omnidirectionally without an energy conversion process.

So you're not saying that gravitational potential energy isn't a scalar, but you are saying that it's "by its nature vectoral", which is somehow different from actually being a vector - is that right? Because it's gibberish.

I can only suggest then that you contact Zdenek Bazant and ask him to remove the vectors from his energy analysis of the WTC collapse.

Zdenek Bazant does not, as far as I am aware, have any difficulties comprehending the difference between vectors and scalars. Parts of what you've written in this thread seem to suggest that you do have such difficulties, and Griffin's absurd statement says the same about him.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

J = Kg m^2/s^2

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving an object one metre along the direction of the force.

Correct. To obtain the work done when the object moves along some different direction to that of the force, take the dot product of the two vectors representing the force and the displacement. From Wikipedia,

"In mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), the dot product, also known as the scalar product, is a binary operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_operation) which takes two vectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28spatial%29) over the real numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_numbers) R and returns a real-valued scalar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28mathematics%29) quantity."

Therefore energy, calculated as the dot product of force and displacement is a scalar, not a vector.

How much further into your mouth do you think your foot can go?

Dave

[humingbrd]

So why do so many people seem unable to control themselves and stop answering my posts?



Sorry to intrude again mr. Rea, but could you clarify this statement? Are you suggesting that people who stop answering your posts are unable to control themselves? Thanks in advance for your explanation.

[chipmunk stew]

J = Kg m^2/s^2

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving an object one metre along the direction of the force.
Let's go back to Griffin's quote:
"...gravitational energy, which is vertical..."

When an object is suspended above the ground:
Its position (height) is vertical
The gravitational force acting on it is vertical
Its gravitational potential energy IS NOT VERTICAL

When the object is dropped:
Its displacement is vertical
Its gravitational acceleration (g) is vertical
Its kinetic energy IS NOT VERTICAL

You may as well argue that the object's mass is vertical.

Griffin is mixing up fundamental physics concepts. If he weren't making (or repeating) claims about how the twin towers should have collapsed without the aid of explosives, it would be no big deal. But he is (and he has many avid followers) so it is.

[William Rea]

That was precisely my point, yes.

OK, let's look at what was written. You said,

"If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?"

A statement of the form, "If A is true then why is B also true when B contradicts A" tends, in normal usage, to imply an assertion on the part of the speaker that A is not in fact true. If you meant something other by the above statement than that gravitational energy is not a scalar, would you like to explain exactly what it was?

Everything you've said there is fine, although you seem to be trying to reply to something I haven't said. You really must read what is written instead of feeling a primitive urge to just contradict someone you have decided you don't like. And yes, I can do simple vector calculations.

So you're not saying that gravitational potential energy isn't a scalar, but you are saying that it's "by its nature vectoral", which is somehow different from actually being a vector - is that right? Because it's gibberish.

Zdenek Bazant does not, as far as I am aware, have any difficulties comprehending the difference between vectors and scalars. Parts of what you've written in this thread seem to suggest that you do have such difficulties, and Griffin's absurd statement says the same about him.

Dave

How you choose to read what I write is your problem not mine. You chose the length of rope to hang yourself by, live with it.

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.

[A W Smith]

I Vote for a thread split! or someone call a whingealance for rea.


ut oh i feel a pepto bismol commercial coming on.

[Dave Rogers]

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.

Then I suggest you contact him and point out his error. If you're correct, no doubt he'll be grateful. What exactly this has to do with anything I've said in this thread is a complete mystery to me, but I doubt I'll ever be able to follow your thought processes.

Dave

[chipmunk stew]

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.
???

This I gotta see. Show us some quotes with citations.

[William Rea]

I Vote for a thread split! or someone call a whingealance for rea.


ut oh i feel a pepto bismol commercial coming on.

Already done, I decided to get out of this thread to stop you all whingeing about me posting in it. :D

[Dave Rogers]

Already done, I decided to get out of this thread to stop you all whingeing about me posting in it. :D

So you couldn't find any references to Bazant saying energy was a vector?

Dave

[William Rea]

So you couldn't find any references to Bazant saying energy was a vector?

Dave

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.

[HyJinX]

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.

Trust me, you're a liar.

[TjW]

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.
So, as far as this thread goes, Mr. Rea, you're a goner? You really should consider using that as a nickname.

[Minadin]

You mean like this : ;) ;) ;)

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

[Gravy]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?Yes: the Viennese. They're justifiably proud of their pastry. Vienna is not a place to visit when you're dieting.

[HeyLeroy]

Yes: the Viennese. They're justifiably proud of their pastry. Vienna is not a place to visit when you're dieting.

I thought Vienna was famous for its cocktail wieners.
http://liveu-28.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1184028L.jpg

If I go off topic it is mostly because of my replies to the baseless personal attacks, if I am off topic report me to the Mods. I am firmly on topic disputing the basis of the nomination of these awards, 10% of which I have manged to debunk so far.

You can't debunk mine! I'TS UNDEBONKABLE!!!!1111!!!!LOL!!!!
http://liveu-73.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1183973L.gifhttp://liveu-74.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1183974L.gifhttp://liveu-73.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1183973L.gif

[Horatius]

Actually yes but, I'm bored with the thread now and have moved on. You'll have to find it yourself, trust me it's there.


Just in case anyone missed it, here's Mr. Rea's "proof" of "energy vectors":

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491662#post2491662


I'll let you read the rest of the thread to see how it all turns out.

[pagan]

I want to push for myself here. I voted on myself, of course.

pgn - "...a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit."I think it is quite funny. But, I want to make a little disclaimer. It is taken out of context. The main message in it, was that Gravy was such a gullible patriot that he would accept being a missile in a batman suit, if the CIA asked him to.

[chipmunk stew]

I want to push for myself here. I voted on myself, of course.

I think it is quite funny. But, I want to make a little disclaimer. It is taken out of context. The main message in it, was that Gravy was such a gullible patriot that he would accept being a missile in a batman suit, if the CIA asked him to.
Much as I loved this nomination, I couldn't vote for it because I didn't think it qualified as a Stundie. It was more of a "coffee-on-monitor" nomination.

[Humphreys]

I had to vote for "What rubble?".

It reminded me of the Monty Python dead Parrot sketch.

Look, there it is, it's rubble.

No it isn't!!

It IS, look! *grabs rubble and starts banging it on the desk*

No...that's just dust.

[Mobyseven]

I had to vote for "What rubble?".

It reminded me of the Monty Python dead Parrot sketch.

Look, there it is, it's rubble.

No it isn't!!

It IS, look! *grabs rubble and starts banging it on the desk*

No...that's just dust.

Haha...I knew it reminded me of something.

[chipmunk stew]

I had to vote for "What rubble?".

It reminded me of the Monty Python dead Parrot sketch.

Look, there it is, it's rubble.

No it isn't!!

It IS, look! *grabs rubble and starts banging it on the desk*

No...that's just dust.
It's ultra-coarse macro-dust.

[HawksFan]

It's ultra-coarse macro-dust.

Actually, I believe it would be ultra-course NANO-dust.

And I had to vote for the steel spring one. That one just cracks me up for some reason.

[Ove]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

Yes off course i knew that, i also know that what you call "Danish" has only a slim resemblance to what we call "Wienerbrød" and that again is far from the original Wieneese pastry. The common thing is the flaked bread. You produce this by rolling out the pastry thin, putting thin slices of butter (or margerine) on top. Fold - roll - more butter Fold - roll -etc. In the end you just fold and roll 10-15 times without added butter and you chill in between some of the foldings. It takes a long time but it gives the flaky appearance that characterizers real "Wienerbrød". Then off course you shape it into various moulds and add custard, jam, whip cream or ..... The variations are endless :)

Bon Appetite ... ;)

[Ove]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

Yes off course i knew that, i also know that what you call "Danish" has only a slim resemblance to what we call "Wienerbrød" and that again is far from the original Wieneese pastry. The common thing is the flaked bread. You produce this by rolling out the pastry thin, putting thin slices of butter (or margerine) on top. Fold - roll - more butter Fold - roll -etc. In the end you just fold and roll 10-15 times without added butter and you chill in between some of the foldings. It takes a long time but it gives the flaky appearance that characterizers real "Wienerbrød". Then off course you shape it into various moulds and add custard, jam, whip cream or ..... The variations are endless :)

Bon Appetite ... ;)

[Ove]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

Yes off course i knew that, i also know that what you call "Danish" has only a slim resemblance to what we call "Wienerbrød" and that again is far from the original Wieneese pastry. The common thing is the flaked bread. You produce this by rolling out the pastry thin, putting thin slices of butter (or margerine) on top. Fold - roll - more butter Fold - roll -etc. In the end you just fold and roll 10-15 times without added butter and you chill in between some of the foldings. It takes a long time but it gives the flaky appearance that characterizers real "Wienerbrød". Then off course you shape it into various moulds and add custard, jam, whip cream or ..... The variations are endless :)

Bon Appetite ... ;)

[Ove]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

Yes off course i knew that, i also know that what you call "Danish" has only a slim resemblance to what we call "Wienerbrød" and that again is far from the original Wieneese pastry. The common thing is the flaked bread. You produce this by rolling out the pastry thin, putting thin slices of butter (or margerine) on top. Fold - roll - more butter Fold - roll -etc. In the end you just fold and roll 10-15 times without added butter and you chill in between some of the foldings. It takes a long time but it gives the flaky appearance that characterizers real "Wienerbrød". Then off course you shape it into various moulds and add custard, jam, whip cream or ..... The variations are endless :)

Bon Appetite ... ;)

[Ove]

Did you know that in Danmark, a "Danish" is called "weinerbrød" which, directly translated, means "bread from Vienna (Austria)"? Is no one willing to own up to these pastry delights?

Yes off course i knew that, i also know that what you call "Danish" has only a slim resemblance to what we call "Wienerbrød" and that again is far from the original Wieneese pastry. The common thing is the flaked bread. You produce this by rolling out the pastry thin, putting thin slices of butter (or margerine) on top. Fold - roll - more butter Fold - roll -etc. In the end you just fold and roll 10-15 times without added butter and you chill in between some of the foldings. It takes a long time but it gives the flaky appearance that characterizers real "Wienerbrød". Then off course you shape it into various moulds and add custard, jam, whip cream or ..... The variations are endless :)

Bon Appetite ... ;)

[HeyLeroy]

Y'all can bite me. Four votes.

[defaultdotxbe]

Y'all can bite me. Four votes.
didnt we decide RE: pagan that anyway who wants a stundie doesnt deserve one? :p

[HeyLeroy]

Hey, I'm suitably embarassed by the stupidity of the post which got me nominated; it wasn't a deliberate attempt to gain a nomination. But with my luck I couldn't get lucky in a monkey whorehouse with a bag of bananas. A win's a win!

[Myriad]

As the one who nominated HeyLeroy, I considered the nomination question carefully. I agree that the math error was minor. IMHO, two things put it over the threshold for nominability. One, a bit of thought about the everyday physical implications of the result (e.g. sound travelling way over a mile in way less than a second) would have made the mistake immediately apparent (unless HL lives in a place with no thunderstorms, or with so many of them that hearing the thunder within a second of seeing nearby lightning is a common occurrence). Two, and more important, the mistake was made in the context of HL nominating someone else for having gotten it wrong.

However, though I'm not surprised it made the poll, I'm pretty sure it would have been passed over as uninteresting -- it would have failed to measure up to Stundie finalist standards -- if a truther had made the same mistake. (Unless perhaps the truther built up an entire elaborate case around it, comparable to the 110-second collapse time calculation.)

Thus my only justification for voting for it would be as some sort of empty symbolic gesture, born of insecurity and fear of accusations of hypocrisy, compelling me to "stand behind" my nomination.

Which is good enough for me! Make that five votes, HeyLeroy!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mobyseven]

As the one who nominated HeyLeroy, I considered the nomination question carefully. I agree that the math error was minor. IMHO, two things put it over the threshold for nominability. One, a bit of thought about the everyday physical implications of the result (e.g. sound travelling way over a mile in way less than a second) would have made the mistake immediately apparent (unless HL lives in a place with no thunderstorms, or with so many of them that hearing the thunder within a second of seeing nearby lightning is a common occurrence). Two, and more important, the mistake was made in the context of HL nominating someone else for having gotten it wrong.

However, though I'm not surprised it made the poll, I'm pretty sure it would have been passed over as uninteresting -- it would have failed to measure up to Stundie finalist standards -- if a truther had made the same mistake. (Unless perhaps the truther built up an entire elaborate case around it, comparable to the 110-second collapse time calculation.)

Thus my only justification for voting for it would be as some sort of empty symbolic gesture, born of insecurity and fear of accusations of hypocrisy, compelling me to "stand behind" my nomination.

Which is good enough for me! Make that five votes, HeyLeroy!

Respectfully,
Myriad

Hehe...he was just so sure he had caught a truther making another silly mistake...it was too juicy to leave out!

[Ove]

Sorry about the triple posting folks, my connection was playing tricks yesterday..

Andeee sorry for derailing the debate :)

[Mobyseven]

Bump! For the end draws gradually nearer...

[qarnos]

Thanks, Moby.

I hadn't seen these. The "egg experiment" is hilarious!

Just like the towers

ROFL!

[LashL]

<snip>The "egg experiment" is hilarious!
...
ROFL

Indeed - that one *ahem* cracked me up, too ;)

[8den]

Indeed - that one *ahem* cracked me up, too ;)

Take your coat and get out now.

[Horatius]

Perhaps we should limit the voting time on these to just the first 10 or 12 days of the month following. We seem to have about a 20 day gap in posts, which only seems to have allowed one more person to vote. It would be better to have a winner earlier in the month, otherwise people start to forget about them.

[LashL]

Take your coat and get out now.

Just came back for my hat ;)


Perhaps we should limit the voting time on these to just the first 10 or 12 days of the month following. We seem to have about a 20 day gap in posts, which only seems to have allowed one more person to vote. It would be better to have a winner earlier in the month, otherwise people start to forget about them.

Agreed. The voting period does seem too long.

[Mobyseven]

Perhaps we should limit the voting time on these to just the first 10 or 12 days of the month following. We seem to have about a 20 day gap in posts, which only seems to have allowed one more person to vote. It would be better to have a winner earlier in the month, otherwise people start to forget about them.

Agreed. Perhaps 14 days (2 weeks, so about half a month)?

[Horatius]

Agreed. Perhaps 14 days (2 weeks, so about half a month)?



Sounds good. Gives the compiler a few days to sort them out, then 10-12 days voting, for about 12-14 days total.

[LashL]

Excellent idea. That will keep the voting thread for the past month more focused, and once the votes have been tabulated, posters can focus on the current month's nomination thread and the current crop of Stundie fun and frivolity :D

[Mobyseven]

Excellent ideas. Will put them into place when next month's poll is due.

I assume I'm doing it, as no one else has volunteered? Yell out if you feel strongly about this, but I'm a student (with a bit of time on my hands), and I rather enjoy sorting through the mayhem (I'm a masochist, aye...) so I don't mind in the least organising the April poll!

:D

[Mobyseven]

Vote! Vote my pretties! For soon the poll will close...bwahahahaha!!!

* Mobyseven flies off into the distance with his hang-gliding monkeys.

Flying ones are too expensive...

[Mobyseven]

Vote well, tonight, JREFers - because tomorrow we vote in May!

This is the final bump before I announce the results for this month, so vote now if you haven't already!

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, vote! It's currently a tie.

[qarnos]

Yes, vote! It's currently a tie.

I hope the stundie nominees have their preference deals sorted out.

[Mobyseven]

(Note to self, when working on Melbourne time, remember that it's likely only Melbourne people will respond to you...:p)

In the event of a tie...*****! In the event of a tie I'll figure out what to do. I will I tells ya!

[HeyLeroy]

Only six votes?

Thanks for nothing, you bastages.

[rwguinn]

Only six votes?

Thanks for nothing, you bastages.
The only thing worse than embarrasing yourelf in front of a large number of people is having no one notice...
I feels for ya, eyLeroy!

[Mr.D]

In the event of a tie...


I thought it was obvious. In the event of a two-way tie for first, the Stundie award gets split up evenly between them.

66% each.

[The Doc]

It appears the egg experiment won?

[Foolmewunz]

Figured I'd get my vote in before we retire the thing permanently... New Kid in Town: Tabouere - may get all the nominations in May (assuming there's no suicide by mod or chicken-out)!

He/She has an advantage. In addition to seeming to have just arrived from a site where "Oh, Yeah?" is accepted as evidence, there's a language/translation problem, lending a certain charm to the posts.

Thus far, he's got the towers at 60/70% concrete (Gravy was tempted to nominate this for the current month), linked a Christian organization with "Israel" in its names to claims of zionism, and at least three other gems. The kid's a comer!

I voted for the eggs. I'd like to see a CAT scan.... The workings of a mind that would think to make a model of a regular, angled, geometric structure by using irregular ovoid objects is just such a leap forward from chickenwire and construction paper..... well, it just stuns me!

Runners Up: Judy Wood, Christopher7, and HeyLeroy.

ETA: Gravy nominated Tabouere on the above mentioned post.

[Mobyseven]

The poll ain't over til the fat lady sings, people! Due to a slight error of calculation, it technically doesn't close till tomorrow morning Australian EST (GMT +10 hours).

Believe me, when the poll is officially closed, I'll make the official announcement. Until then there's still a good 11 hours in the race!

[Mobyseven]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12744460f418e6b3d3.gif

We are gathered here today to honour Roscoe, who has brought a great amount of laughter into our lives. Through dedicated research Roscoe has provided yet another example of an object denser than a singularity.

We gather tonight to award The Stundie. The Stundie is the sister award to the Darwin: for those who refuse to remove themselves from the gene pool by accident, but will make it their lifetime goal to poison it.

We thank you, Roscoe, and hope that you continue to post your comments on this or any other subject, using your gift for inadvertent comedy as a lesson to all of us here at the NWO.

To receive The Stundie is one of the most profound honours offered by the members of the JREF Conspiracy Theory Subforum, and one which in your case is well earned. Many attempt The Stundie, few attain it. You, Roscoe, have marked yourself as one deserving such an award.

Congratulations and Mazel Tov!

[Mobyseven]

Close call for second place: Rosie O'Donnell (-2 votes)

Long shot for third place: WithoutRights (-15 votes)

Don't forget to cast your vote in the April finals, and keep the nominations coming for May!

Peace Out

Mobyseven

[Brainache]

Damn, Rosie beaten by an egg.

[Orphia Nay]

Damn, Rosie beaten by an egg.
:newlol

*fanfare, and curtains close*