June 2007 Stundie Nominations [Archive]

Mobyseven

31st May 2007, 08:29 AM

How-do, y'all! It's The Stundies!

Righto, the rules are working well, but there are a few clarifications to be made, as well as basic rule regarding video entries.

I present, the new and improved rules of Fight Club Teh 28th Annual Stundie Awards:

Nominations should always be accompanied by a link or a screenshot, to confirm that the quote exists and has not been taken out of context. (It would be wise to always have a backup screenshot, as truth movement forums are well known for deleting entire threads.)
For a nomination to be eligible, it must have a real and obvious link to conspiracy theories, but not exclusively 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Stundie nominations should 'stand alone'. Do not over-embellish introductions, but do provide comments. Do not use any blatant ad hominem attacks.
Please post the nomination under the real screenname of the nominee, and not under a slightly altered name (e.g. Killclown, Roxpup, Do-over).
The best Stundie nominations are short and sweet. As a guideline, no more than 6 lines should be included from the post. If you are giving context, highlight the actual nomination.
Entire videos are not eligible for nomination. Specific statements or claims from videos are eligible for nomination.
No long rants. Cut them down to the funniest bit.
No speeling mistikes. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while!

To help clarify the new rules (two and six)...

According to rule two, the following would be eligible:

Directly discussing a conspiracy theory.
If they hadn't blown up WTC7 then ppl would hav found teh explosives in there!!111eleventyoneness! SHILL1

Ironic, hypocritical, or other appropriate statements made by members or leaders of the truth movement.
Buy my new video and find out how Mark Roberts is profiting off the deaths of thousands of innocent people! That'll be twenty pieces of eight, thanks.

The following would not be eligible:

Skeptical issue not involving a conspiracy theory.
Of course Sylvia Browne's a real psychic! Otherwise she wouldn't be so rich, would she?

According to rule six, the following would not be eligible:

Hey guys, I nominate the following video for the Stundies: http://www.youtube.com/notarealurl/ (What are you, a moron? This isn't REAL!)

The following would be eligible:

Hey guys, I nominate the following:
The twin towers had cheese cores, and they collapsed because of specially trained New World Order mice that ate them. My cat's breath smells like cat food.
It comes from this video - http://www.youtube.com/notarealurl/ (What are you, a moron? This isn't REAL!)

If you have any questions regarding the eligibility of a nominations (or potential nomination), don't worry, just ask. After all, that's how the two new rules came about this month.

So what are you waiting for? Get to it! Nominate, yah!

Mobyseven

Democratically Elected Tyrant

chipmunk stew

31st May 2007, 08:36 AM

ae911truth justify their banning of Gravy (http://www.ae911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=68#68) from the forum:
Banned for unsuccessful attempts at skepticism and trolling

CHF

31st May 2007, 08:54 AM

ae911truth justify their banning of Gravy (http://www.ae911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=68#68) from the forum:

The bar has been set pretty high already. Although I'm sure Malcolm is up for the challenge.

DavidJames

31st May 2007, 09:31 AM

The hard part is deciding which Malcolm quote to nominate. I'm surprised this one isn't here yet.I don't need vetted evidence, I just need to suspect it.

Minadin

31st May 2007, 09:39 AM

Sorry, another from Malcolm as I'm still struggling to get caught up in that thread:

What's on fire, concrete and steel?

(regarding the collapse of the twin towers - he had posited that there must have been explosives to bring them down because some material was sent in an upward direction - someone else pointed out that in the still image he provided, what he was referring to was "smoke")

Belz...

31st May 2007, 09:47 AM

Aren't we still in May, guys ?

chipmunk stew

31st May 2007, 09:54 AM

Aren't we still in May, guys ?
Not according to our Democratically Elected Tyrant. Mobyseven is the State. You're not questioning the State, are you?

Dave Rogers

31st May 2007, 10:03 AM

I'm not going to post in Malcolm's idiotic thread, but I've been watching with amused horror. I see he's found the ultimate in authoritative sources:

Will you take my word for that, or do I have to dig out the newspaper references?

"It's there in the papers, it must be the truth." - Tom Robinson.

Dave

Alareth

31st May 2007, 11:14 AM

ae911truth justify their banning of Gravy (http://www.ae911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=68#68) from the forum:

How can one be unsuccesful at skepticisim?

beachnut

31st May 2007, 11:26 AM

ae911truth justify their banning of Gravy (http://www.ae911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=68#68) from the forum:
Does it mean you will not be banned for successful attempts at skepticism and trolling ?

How can a forum be so dumb, top to bottom. The forum will be self critiquing, no need to for debate, the stupid will shine through the crap.

defaultdotxbe

31st May 2007, 11:29 AM

How can one be unsuccesful at skepticisim?
become a member of the truth movement

beachnut

31st May 2007, 11:29 AM

Aren't we still in May, guys ?
Are you using facts again?

qarnos

31st May 2007, 02:08 PM

Aren't we still in May, guys ?

May ended over 7 hours ago. Stop living in the past, dude! :D

Mince

31st May 2007, 05:30 PM

I just got June's winner boys, and it isn't even June.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...174&st=0&#last (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10174&st=0&#last)

by Revolutionary91

How many times must people say this?

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON, WE DO KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT A 757. WE ARE TRUTH SEEKERS, NOT TRUTH TELLERS

No introduction or analysis needed.

realitybites

31st May 2007, 05:45 PM

From our new friend Malcolm Kirkland (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2646221&postcount=247):

You need a pointy bit on the front. No pointy bit = no entry.

LashL

31st May 2007, 05:46 PM

I just got June's winner boys, and it isn't even June.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...174&st=0&#last (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10174&st=0&#last)

No introduction or analysis needed.

Priceless.

Now, let's move to July then, shall we?

:D

Unsecured Coins

31st May 2007, 05:56 PM

I hereby nominate this to be the OFFICIAL Stundie gif, to be presented along with that awesome statuette.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa3on30c.gif

Mobyseven

31st May 2007, 08:38 PM

Aren't we still in May, guys ?
Not according to our Democratically Elected Tyrant. Mobyseven is the State. You're not questioning the State, are you?
May ended over 7 hours ago. Stop living in the past, dude! :D

Both of those were correct answers. Chipmunk Stew, you get a promotion. Qarnos, you get a clock. :p

Seriously though - Australia time.

I hereby nominate this to be the OFFICIAL Stundie gif, to be presented along with that awesome statuette.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa3on30c.gif

Hmmmm...what do people think?

I suggested in the other thread that the runner-up prize be named the "Malcolm Kirkland Medal", rather than possibly skewing the voting by allowing people who have won in the past win an award of a different name.

What if this gif is presented with the Malcolm Kirkland Medal for the runner up?

Belz...

1st June 2007, 07:09 AM

This man's a gold mine.

.
No such a thing as a transitive verb

Verb transitive = correct.
Transitve verb = incorrect.

Belz...

1st June 2007, 07:10 AM

Seriously though - Australia time.

Pfft. Australia. That place is a myth. ;)

chipmunk stew

1st June 2007, 07:48 AM

I hereby nominate this to be the OFFICIAL Stundie gif, to be presented along with that awesome statuette.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa3on30c.gif

Hmmmm...what do people think?

I suggested in the other thread that the runner-up prize be named the "Malcolm Kirkland Medal", rather than possibly skewing the voting by allowing people who have won in the past win an award of a different name.

What if this gif is presented with the Malcolm Kirkland Medal for the runner up?

Well, I can't stop laughing, so it's gotta be incorporated somehow.

I like the runner up idea.

Mobyseven

1st June 2007, 08:18 AM

Well, I can't stop laughing, so it's gotta be incorporated somehow.

I like the runner up idea.

Mmm - that's my feeling, and it'll be the easiest to implement.

As such, from now on the runner up will receive the Malcolm Kirkman Medal.

With that gif, aye.

Rawkarma

1st June 2007, 08:20 AM

Stundie came up with a couple of gems again:

So hypothetically speaking, all the worlds mathmeticians decided and agreed 100% that 2+2=4 is actually wrong....they agree that the answer is now either 3 or 5 and proved it without a shadow of a doubt!

Would 2+2=4 be a fact anymore?? ....No!

Has the fact changed....Yes!

Link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1825&st=60#)

2+2=4 is a fact that will never change....However, doesn't mean it can't change!!

Link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1825&st=60#)

HeyLeroy

1st June 2007, 08:54 AM

I hereby nominate this to be the OFFICIAL Stundie gif, to be presented along with that awesome statuette.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa3on30c.gif
Sarge, you come up with the bestest funnies in the history of bestest funnies.

Hmmmm...what do people think?

I suggested in the other thread that the runner-up prize be named the "Malcolm Kirkland Medal", rather than possibly skewing the voting by allowing people who have won in the past win an award of a different name.

What if this gif is presented with the Malcolm Kirkland Medal for the runner up?

Second Place... Flat on the Face...

Gotta use it somehow!

Stundie came up with a couple of gems again:
Link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1825&st=60#)
Link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1825&st=60#)

Dang, and here I thought I'd be the first with an Original Stundie!

Good, at least you're open to learning something....moving on,Well we could go around in circles...but thats your tactic.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1493&pid=22305&st=100&#entry22305
Further down the same post:
Because there are 2 bodies...the upper portion and the lower portion...the lower portion stronger portion should have resisted the weight of the upper lighter portion. Regardless of your physics for the impact force.

Belz...

1st June 2007, 09:11 AM

Belz...

1st June 2007, 09:12 AM

Regardless of your physics for the impact force.

Yes. Who needs those physics ?

Horatius

1st June 2007, 11:51 AM

this was posted on May 31st, but I'm not sure if it was before or after the noms closed for May, but I'll add it here anyways. LUCUS at LCF (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10168&view=findpost&p=13696521):

When Jeff Goldblume looks at his computer to see how much time he has left before the clocks hits 0 it says there is

9:11 Left before the aliens implode the skyscrapers from THE TOP DOWN!!!

Coincidence?

The really funny part is all the others who see merit in his suggestion, and think this film shows the NWO's "plans" for 9/11. I guess the mile-wide spaceships were on backorder that day, though....

Belz...

1st June 2007, 12:06 PM

The really funny part is all the others who see merit in his suggestion, and think this film shows the NWO's "plans" for 9/11.

Gosh. I really wish the NWO rank-and-file stopped leaking that stuff to the masses ! Especially through Hollywood.

defaultdotxbe

1st June 2007, 02:47 PM

Mmm - that's my feeling, and it'll be the easiest to implement.

As such, from now on the runner up will receive the Malcolm Kirkman Medal.

With that gif, aye.
i dont think malcom has proven himself worthy, there are still suspicions he is just a very persistant prankster, i say give it another month or two and we'll know if hes for real or just passing through

uk_dave

2nd June 2007, 02:02 AM

Christians for 9/11 Truth:
Porn is everywhere in our country today. It is a disease for many. It would seem to be the work of the devil and the NWO. Trying to distract us from our real path in life. I strugal with it, as I am shure that many of you do as well. Sometimes I hate myself, I dont want to look at porn anymore. There is so much I want to say here but I am about 2 beers away from being drunk and ever lazy so in short, **** you devil 666 NWO porn.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10236

This boy has so many problems.

NickUK

2nd June 2007, 02:06 AM

Ah dave, you utter b*tch!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_110194661329b14d8c.jpg ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6121')

I was going to nominate that one too!

I just *LOVE* the self loathing.

Just go and do it C49/11T! Just make sure you clean up afterwards and no-one will know! It's perfectly natural!

nicepants

2nd June 2007, 03:45 AM

Have to nominate Stundie, because this thread just wouldn't be the same without him.......in the same sense that high school just wouldn't have been the same without that teacher everyone suspected of being just a little bit nuts.

Stundie challenged anyone to provide an example of a FACT, and he would prove that facts change. I gave him "2 + 2 = 4"

2+2=4 is a fact that will never change....However, doesn't mean it can't change!!

See it to believe it (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1825&view=findpost&p=22261)

I guess using that same logic I could say that I, as a male, will never get pregnant...but that doesn't mean I can't get pregnant!

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 04:46 AM

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10236

This boy has so many problems.

Yeah. Evil, evil sex.

uk_dave

2nd June 2007, 05:06 AM

Yeah. Evil, evil sex.

It's a fascinating study in the truth behind the 'truth'.

The kid thinks of himself as a good christian, but his desires make him loathe himself. He has an obsession with porn, but instead of taking responsibility for this himself, he seeks to blame some mysterious NWO or satanic cult for ensnaring him.

'Truthers' whine when we point out that a belief in the NWO/Illuminati/reptoids being behind 911 is a psychological condition manifesting itself as a desire to see an enemy they can blame for everything they hate about themselves and their lives, as opposed to a real enemy you can see on your tv screens but which has nothing to do with how bad they might be feeling about themselves at any given time.

And here we have this LCF poster who perfectly illustrates that mentality.

chippy

2nd June 2007, 01:02 PM

PDoherty, in his debate with The Doc at Doc's new 9/11 Debates forum:

By saying the fires could not be fought you are trying to mislead. They were not huge fires, but I believe the water pressure was gone and they didnt have the means to fight it.

http://911debates.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7&sid=fd4c7b3fc37ccfb2475a9df0a41da7b7

i.e., it's misleading to say that the fires couldn't be fought, even though it's actually true that the fires couldn't be fought.

Horatius

2nd June 2007, 01:17 PM

Malcolm Kirkman learns to count:

After May 5th 1945, the five continents of the world were no longer embroiled in war. Therefore it ceased to be a world war.

There are only five continents of the world?

In the world I live in.

chippy

2nd June 2007, 01:19 PM

My opponents appear to be on a roll.

Killtown, in his latest blog post:

Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC:

BELIEVABILITY

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html#links

Really? I'm pretty sure that believability is the whole reason why they SHOULD have used planes at the WTC.

Dog Town

2nd June 2007, 01:31 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2656306#post2656306

Thinking differently is what the JREF Conspiracy forum objects to.

In LC we only ask that you be prepared to have an honest discussion.

MM

Thats rich!

8den

2nd June 2007, 03:31 PM

Porn is everywhere in our country today. It is a disease for many. It would seem to be the work of the devil and the NWO. Trying to distract us from our real path in life. I strugal with it, as I am shure that many of you do as well. Sometimes I hate myself, I dont want to look at porn anymore. There is so much I want to say here but I am about 2 beers away from being drunk and ever lazy so in short, **** you devil 666 NWO porn.

Why are the satanic NWO elite putting porn on the internet?

Yes I am your straight man, boys, go nuts.

Slayhamlet

2nd June 2007, 03:41 PM

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10236

This boy has so many problems.

Not sure this is the best material for the Stundies. While it certainly illustrates a psychological phenomenon prevalent in the "Truth" movement, it's really more sad than funny.

chipmunk stew

2nd June 2007, 06:36 PM

William Rea takes these "awards" a little too seriously:
I dispute this nomination [the one where LTW compares themselves to Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, etc.] on the grounds that the relevance of these historical figures is subjective and that history has yet to judge any of the important figures in the 911 debate to the same extent.

Cl1mh4224rd

2nd June 2007, 09:59 PM

William Rea takes these "awards" a little too seriously:

I dispute this nomination [the one where LTW compares themselves to Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, etc.] on the grounds that the relevance of these historical figures is subjective and that history has yet to judge any of the important figures in the 911 debate to the same extent.

Does he even know how much like Bush he sounds? Once again, the truthers are the people they hate...

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 10:27 AM

Miragememories remains at a loss as to why the Twin Towers fell:

As a footnote, I work in a building that is designed along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2. It's the south tower of two. It was also completed in 1973. So far, other tthan a few stairwell cracks on the 22nd floor, it looks like it might remain standing.

I'm sure alot of JREFer's are saying "damn" at that news.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656455&postcount=226

qarnos

3rd June 2007, 02:12 PM

Miragememories remains at a loss as to why the Twin Towers fell:

Only a few cracks in the stairwell? How many airliners have been flown into it?

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 04:09 PM

Only a few cracks in the stairwell? How many airliners have been flown into it?The funniest thing is that, as LashL pointed out, he's describing damage to the 22nd floor stairwell in an 18-story building.

Here's another from him, describing WTC 7:
Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658938&postcount=351

William Rea

4th June 2007, 02:03 AM

Does he even know how much like Bush he sounds? Once again, the truthers are the people they hate...

This is what makes me smile, you all protest that you don't want to talk about me and yet here in the JUNE nominations you are posting about me and my posts regarding May's Finals (in no particular context other than to make a personal attack I'll add).

I think you all protest too much.

Undesired Walrus

4th June 2007, 02:45 AM

I nominate

Avery: "You've got to get your facts straight if you're going to make accusations like this."- To Killtown in their no-plane debate.

qarnos

4th June 2007, 03:21 AM

I nominate

Avery: "You've got to get your facts straight if you're going to make accusations like this."- To Killtown in their no-plane debate.

In this video (http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/4FEC9FCBAF5343249441B4AB1296E130/loose-change-protects-the-perp.aspx) about 8 seconds in.

ETA:

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?

chipmunk stew

4th June 2007, 05:19 AM

you all protest that you don't want to talk about me
eh? :con2:

stateofgrace

4th June 2007, 05:39 AM

A little goldmine of Stundies.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10327

Thread : Ways to predict the next big attack @ LCF.

LUCUS.

If you see a moving company outside of the Rockefeller house at 4AM in NYC, you can rest assured there is something going to happen to NYC.

8bitagent.

I say watch the dates. Major terror attacks post 9/11 usually happen when there is an "11" or "7" in the date.

sleepy2k16
I heard the number 11 is the number for Global Government and NWO

I had a dream it would be in august.

femafuncamp

y cant we just spy on EVERYONE *elite* but then agian they would think a way around it

8bitagent
11 is definately a fave, along with 77, and 33.

Remember, 9/11 was:

11 years after Bush Sr's NWO debut speech to the world
done on the 11th of september
ON the towers, created by Rockefeller in the shape of an 11
with Flight 11
11(0) stories tall each
11 years before 2012
2012 is the year when the 1776 feet tall freedom obelisk rises in its place

Whats the two big occult numbers? 11 and 77. what are the flights? 11 and 77
What are the big attacks since? 3/11, 7/7, 7/11, 4/11, 10/7, etc

Who need security services and counter terrorist organisations? Just watch the dates, spy on anybody who may be vaguely important and if any doubt rely on your dreams to wade off terrorist’s intent on death and destruction.

chipmunk stew

4th June 2007, 05:46 AM

In this video (http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/4FEC9FCBAF5343249441B4AB1296E130/loose-change-protects-the-perp.aspx) about 8 seconds in.

ETA:

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?
Only history can judge Stundie-worthiness...

Seriously, though: at work we have a change control process that's designed to encourage as many good ideas as possible. So anyone can submit a request for a change, and while there are some general guidelines and a template to follow, there are very few restrictions on the content of the request. The requests are all reviewed by a change control board, which makes go/no-go decisions, assigns follow-up investigations, and sets priorities.

The point is, even in the serious business of making changes and enhancements to medical devices, all ideas (within a set of broad guidelines) are welcome for consideration.

In the case of this fake, non-serious "award", we have a democratically-elected tyrant in place of a change control board, and we rank "go" submissions democratically rather than having our priorities set by a product manager, but in a general sense the process is remarkably similar.

The guidelines for submission in the OP cover practical concerns (like having a link to the quote) and etiquette (discouraging ad hominems and unnecessary commentary) but doesn't, and shouldn't, speak to "Stundie-worthiness". The whole point of the "award" is to elect the most "Stundie-worthy" nomination.

William Rea

4th June 2007, 06:03 AM

In this video (http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/4FEC9FCBAF5343249441B4AB1296E130/loose-change-protects-the-perp.aspx) about 8 seconds in.

ETA:

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?

A good question.

I think a while ago someone actually informally stated what a Stundie nomination was and it was along the lines of scientifically illogical etc. I don't think criteria were actually laid down formally except to say that 1. It shouldn't be Ad Hom and 2. it shouldn't be for a spelling mistake.

Even though I disagree fundamentally with the concept of the Stundies I think both of these criteria showed a willingness to address the issue and are general rules for the whole forum anyway.

It is probably no surprise to you that I believe that nomination to be Ad Hom. I have some thoughts to share that are not necessarily based upon logic.

1. Why am I laughing at the nomination?

2. Am I laughing AT or WITH the nominee?

3. If the nominee was stood in a room with me while I derided the post would I feel comfortable with it?

4. Is the NOMINATED STATEMENT inherently unreasonable.

The one "skeptic" nomination which was HeyLeroy was used as an example that the nominations are open to everyone. The one thing that set it apart was that the JREFers laughed WITH him. I have yet to see a single other nomination that wasn't directed with malice at the poster because of his views about 911CT.

JimBenArm

4th June 2007, 06:38 AM

A good question.

I think a while ago someone actually informally stated what a Stundie nomination was and it was along the lines of scientifically illogical etc. I don't think criteria were actually laid down formally except to say that 1. It shouldn't be Ad Hom and 2. it shouldn't be for a spelling mistake.

Even though I disagree fundamentally with the concept of the Stundies I think both of these criteria showed a willingness to address the issue and are general rules for the whole forum anyway.

It is probably no surprise to you that I believe that nomination to be Ad Hom. I have some thoughts to share that are not necessarily based upon logic.

1. Why am I laughing at the nomination?

2. Am I laughing AT or WITH the nominee?

3. If the nominee was stood in a room with me while I derided the post would I feel comfortable with it?

4. Is the NOMINATED STATEMENT inherently unreasonable.

The one "skeptic" nomination which was HeyLeroy was used as an example that the nominations are open to everyone. The one thing that set it apart was that the JREFers laughed WITH him. I have yet to see a single other nomination that wasn't directed with malice at the poster because of his views about 911CT.
In your opinion. Which you share ad nauseum.
We get that you don't like them. You don't get that we really don't care.
So, why do you continue to waste your time with this?

William Rea

4th June 2007, 06:44 AM

In your opinion. Which you share ad nauseum.
We get that you don't like them. You don't get that we really don't care.
So, why do you continue to waste your time with this?

You don't care so much that you posted a reply?

chipmunk stew

4th June 2007, 06:50 AM

It is probably no surprise to you that I believe that nomination to be Ad Hom.
It resembles the Tu Quoque fallacy (which many consider a form of Ad Hominem) but it's not. In this case, it's an example of "ethical symmetry":

The Tu Quoque fallacy (http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/tuquoque.asp) mimics the legitimate use of the principle of ethical symmetry. However, an error is introduced. It is fair to say that if one reasoner is not entitled to use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it either, but it does not follow from this that if one reasoner uses an illegitimate appeal (and is allowed to get away with it) that the appeal then becomes legitimate. Cheating does not become fair play merely because someone else cheats first. Fair play requires that no one cheat.
Dylan is holding Killtown to a higher ethical standard than that to which he holds himself. Implicitly pointing out this "ethical asymmetry" is not fallacious, even if we laugh at Dylan for it.

JimBenArm

4th June 2007, 06:59 AM

You don't care so much that you posted a reply?
That's correct! You got it! My, you are so observant! I'm impressed!

Horatius

4th June 2007, 07:13 AM

Belz...

4th June 2007, 09:28 AM

It's a fascinating study in the truth behind the 'truth'.

The kid thinks of himself as a good christian, but his desires make him loathe himself. He has an obsession with porn, but instead of taking responsibility for this himself, he seeks to blame some mysterious NWO or satanic cult for ensnaring him.

'Truthers' whine when we point out that a belief in the NWO/Illuminati/reptoids being behind 911 is a psychological condition manifesting itself as a desire to see an enemy they can blame for everything they hate about themselves and their lives, as opposed to a real enemy you can see on your tv screens but which has nothing to do with how bad they might be feeling about themselves at any given time.

And here we have this LCF poster who perfectly illustrates that mentality.

Very well put. One of the foremost source of woo-woo is the need to make sense of something that is arbritrary and impersonal, in my opinion.

Belz...

4th June 2007, 09:31 AM

A little goldmine of Stundies.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10327

Thread : Ways to predict the next big attack @ LCF.

LUCUS.

8bitagent.

sleepy2k16

femafuncamp

8bitagent

Who need security services and counter terrorist organisations? Just watch the dates, spy on anybody who may be vaguely important and if any doubt rely on your dreams to wade off terrorist’s intent on death and destruction.

Unholy mother of hell! These people are far, far off the deep end.

Oh, he had a dream about August. Stop the press!

tacodaemon

4th June 2007, 09:56 AM

New forums member Caustic Logic posts a tongue-in-cheek thread suggesting jokingly that the JREF forum was created in August 2001 because the JREF knew ahead of time about the 9/11 attacks and wanted to have an anti-Truther contingent at the ready. After a couple of chuckles from sensible people, Lyte Trip jumps in and proclaims it quite likely:

hmm. didn't know that. What excellent timing, that all these critical thinkers with 'superior intelligence' would be able to have a forum to help mobilize an opposition against those seeking truth in the matters of 9/11.

As if to convince us, Lyte then goes on to explain some of the other fishy stuff about this here forum:

Did you also know that they require proof of ID for those that are threats to them.

They required me to send my DL and personal data about myself to prove my identity.

They did the same to my partner Aldo. But he would not cave in to those demands.

Clearly, they try to eliminate those that are threats to their "reality".

Let's just remember, that these are anonymous people who pride themselves in namecalling, vile tactics, infiltration, and forms of mini-psy-ops and intimidation.

I would not doubt that this forum is more than what we are lead to believe it is.

The second all these core members come clean and provide names and proof of identity of who they are, people can lower their suspicion.

Daald

4th June 2007, 09:59 AM

Here is my first nomination.

Consulting mental health professionals is something you mugs have been fooled into doing.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2646863&postcount=429

nicepants

4th June 2007, 10:24 AM

Responding to post about the Northwestern University paper on the WTC collapses (submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics for peer review) (Link (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%205-2007.pdf)- PDF)

If you believe the events of 9/11 can be simply analyzed through the use of data assumptions applied to the laws of physics, then I guess it's probably a good paper. Link (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10274)

Screenshot for when thread disappears:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418946644a6110de4.png

I eagerly await marage's peer-review of said article...

Cl1mh4224rd

4th June 2007, 10:38 AM

This is what makes me smile, you all protest that you don't want to talk about me and yet here in the JUNE nominations you are posting about me and my posts regarding May's Finals (in no particular context other than to make a personal attack I'll add).

I think you all protest too much.

I don't recall ever saying any such thing, but then you're not exactly one for factually correct statements, are you?

If you'd prefer to be ignored, that can be done, but I think we already know the answer to that.

Horatius

4th June 2007, 11:04 AM

William Rea takes these "awards" a little too seriously:

I dispute this nomination on the grounds that the relevance of these historical figures is subjective and that history has yet to judge any of the important figures in the 911 debate to the same extent.

Does he even know how much like Bush he sounds? Once again, the truthers are the people they hate...

This is what makes me smile, you all protest that you don't want to talk about me and yet here in the JUNE nominations you are posting about me and my posts regarding May's Finals (in no particular context other than to make a personal attack I'll add).

I think you all protest too much.

And once again, Billy misrepresents the history of the posts he's whining about. It's clear that chipmunk stew was nominating Billy's post from the discussions of the May finals (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2656981#post2656981)as a contender for the June Stundies, and that Cl1mh4224rd is simply adding some coments on the nominated post, which is a common (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2658778#post2658778) practice (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2656571#post2656571) in the Stundie (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2655174#post2655174) nomination (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2653329#post2653329) threads.

One must wonder if Billy actually reads these threads he posts so obsessively about. Otherwise, how could he have so badly misrepresented the nature of the exchange he posts his whine about? It's truly a mystery!

:bunpan

Undesired Walrus

4th June 2007, 11:31 AM

11(0) stories tall each:jaw-dropp

boloboffin

4th June 2007, 02:16 PM

Okay, I laughed at petgoat's odd assertion that the towers were wired for explosives by teams of bright, personable junkies.

However, this nomination is not funny at all. CB_Brooklyn at DU:

Yes, the perps try to scare Dr Wood.

They kill her 9/11 research student Michael Zebuhr, who showed that former Los Alamos Researcher Steven Jones' research was faulty.

They killed her instructors at Virginia Tech in the very classroom she sat in. (Why didn't the police close down the area after the shooting? Were they so sure there was just one shooter? Or was there more to it?)

Yikes.

Gravy

4th June 2007, 02:27 PM

israelside, a recent graduate of the Rosie O'Donnell Creative Writing Correspondence School, lays down the heavy science:

If a substance melts slower than steel then u can wrap the thermate in that substance in order to weaken the column, do i have to keep repeating this before you get it threw your thick skull? These are not just wild fantasies i am talking about, but legit things that could have happend and you know it!!

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2661678&postcount=417

HeyLeroy

4th June 2007, 02:45 PM

I have stated in this thread that people who beliee the OT are 90% ill informed and 10% deluded. Deluded in the respect taht they will disregard the preponderance of evidence, fact, and common sense to cling onto their faith...If you are interested in the truth, then respect common sense.
linky (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1686&pid=22575&st=450&#)
:i:

tacodaemon

4th June 2007, 02:51 PM

Okay, I laughed at petgoat's odd assertion that the towers were wired for explosives by teams of bright, personable junkies.

I continue to wince a bit about the fact that I too graduated from Virginia Tech and am also well aware of what Hokie Stone is. (It's the nickname for the distinctive-looking locally quarried limestone used for mottled-stone facing (http://www.buildingstonemagazine.com/summer-06/hokiestone.html) on many campus buildings. In intro chem labs they like to march everyone outside to squirt hydrochloric acid on it and watch it bubble up from the calcite. "Hokies" is the nickname for the university's sports teams, and, by extension, the students.)

Unsecured Coins

4th June 2007, 04:13 PM

Enki, a MySpacer who found my Unsecured Coins page, schools us ALL on that awesome truther research ability.

I want to surround myself with people fighting for the same thing I am. From your profile you look like just that type of person
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/Invite.jpg

Cl1mh4224rd

4th June 2007, 05:22 PM

Enki, a MySpacer who found my Unsecured Coins page, schools us ALL on that awesome truther research ability.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/Invite.jpg

From your screenshot: ". . .I want to build a like minded fan base to help me get the message of truth out there."

"I'm trying to start a cult" would've been shorter and more to the point...

Gravy

4th June 2007, 08:38 PM

Truthseeker1234 applies his Tractor Beam to Frank Greening:

Stop pretending, get a conscience, switch sides, and help us figure out what they blew the towers up with.

Hall of Fame material, I believe.

Gravy

4th June 2007, 08:45 PM

...and they wonder why we call them "deniers."

Truthseeker1234, on the Twin Towers:

There was no collapse.

Mobyseven

5th June 2007, 06:56 AM

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?

While others have weighed in on this topic, I thought I should briefly address it also.

So long as a submission does not break any of these rules...

Nominations should always be accompanied by a link or a screenshot, to confirm that the quote exists and has not been taken out of context. (It would be wise to always have a backup screenshot, as truth movement forums are well known for deleting entire threads.)
For a nomination to be eligible, it must have a real and obvious link to conspiracy theories, but not exclusively 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Stundie nominations should 'stand alone'. Do not over-embellish introductions, but do provide comments. Do not use any blatant ad hominem attacks.
Please post the nomination under the real screenname of the nominee, and not under a slightly altered name (e.g. Killclown, Roxpup, Do-over).
The best Stundie nominations are short and sweet. As a guideline, no more than 6 lines should be included from the post. If you are giving context, highlight the actual nomination.
Entire videos are not eligible for nomination. Specific statements or claims from videos are eligible for nomination.
No long rants. Cut them down to the funniest bit.
No speeling mistikes. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while!

...it can be considered for the finals.

Assuming that the quote is an accurate representation of what Dylan said in the video (I cannot check for context at the moment - I'm near the end of my download limit here at the moment, and videos can chew up my downloads...), we can move on to the other rules.

There is an obvious link to conspiracy theories, as Dylan is a leader in the 9/11 'truth movement' (Rule 2). The nomination is more or less stand alone - it does assume knowledge that people know who Dylan is and know of his reputation as a researcher, but this is not unreasonable. The nomination is not an ad hominem attack, especially as it works from the knowledge that he is unreliable and irresponsible as a researcher to the conclusion that his remarks to Killtown were ironic, rather than attacking Dylan's credibility to undermine any argument he is putting forth (Rule 3).

The nomination was posted under Dylan's real surname (Avery) (Rule 4). It was short, and the only context required was that it was said by Dylan to a fellow conspiracy theorist, albeit one who his dislikes and disagrees with (Rule 5). The nomination is a specific statement from a video (Rule 6). It is not a long rant, and it is not a spelling mistake (Rules 7 + 8).

As of next month there will be a guideline recommending nominations come from sites other than JREF (though the JREF forums will not be excluded, just not as highly regarded). However, this nomination would clear that guideline too.

As the nomination doesn't break any rules it is eligible for consideration. Now all it has to do is survive among the other eligible nominations this month!

To sum up - nothing is excluded from being considered if it clears the rules of the Stundies. But it still has to be funny.

Mobyseven

Democratically Elected Tyrant

Belz...

5th June 2007, 07:14 AM

Lyte Trip finds an interesting way to ignore any and all forms of physical evidence:

I don't reject "the overwhelming physical evidence". "The overwhelming physical evidence" IS the crime.

Hokulele

5th June 2007, 08:53 AM

Problems -

1. <snip>

3.Pulverized material, while still having the same mass as when intact, effectively does not have the same weight, because of greatly increased air resistance.

3. <snip>

Mass, weight, terminal velocity, acceleration, you know, sciencey stuff.

Gravy

5th June 2007, 09:08 AM

Really, this guy should have a category of his own. Almost everything he says is Stundie-worthy.

From the Desk of: Truthseeker1234

To: So-called 9/11 myth "debunkers"

Re: Your priorities
Kent, I don't see anything "debunking" video fakery and no planes on your site. Have I missed it?

tacodaemon

5th June 2007, 11:22 AM

...and they wonder why we call them "deniers."

Truthseeker1234, on the Twin Towers:

There was no collapse.

Yeah, Ace is following in his hero Judy Judy Judy Judy's footsteps by engaging in semantic battles regarding the existence of a "collapse" and "rubble" as opposed to "high-energy dustification" and "dust".

Kent1

5th June 2007, 04:12 PM

I dispute this nomination on the grounds that the relevance of these historical figures is subjective and that history has yet to judge any of the important figures in the 911 debate to the same extent.
Looks like I'm not the first.
I would also like to add the above William Rea quote.

Maybe I don't know what a Stundie is, but I thought it was just a profoundly stupid and funny quote regarding CT's.

Mobyseven

5th June 2007, 07:34 PM

No problem Kent1. Unfortunately, the person who gets in first usually gets the credit, but it is always good to have people independantly second nominations.

tacodaemon

5th June 2007, 08:31 PM

From the Desk of: Truthseeker1234

To: So-called 9/11 myth "debunkers"

There you go again, Gravy, being all unsuccessfully skeptical and so forth. :o

Foolmewunz

6th June 2007, 02:56 AM

How to nominate a cumulative body of work over a couple of days?

Maybe we can nominate my below paragraph explaining what appears to have happened, but first see this thread, here....
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84033
It merits reading in its entirety, because Dylan has totally (and I mean totally) destroyed his credibility. What a yutz!

Here's the synopsis:
Dylan evidently heard about (or heard) a radio discussion involving Kevin Smith, a real live grown up film director, wherein Smith and his announcer or cohost were discussing Loose Change. Dylan, not much for subtleties, posted the now-famous "ooh, I'm moist with excitement" post on LCF. (With compliments to Undesired Walrus, that young whippersnapper, for finding it.)
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10382

The joke then goes beyond mere self-promotion, though, because Dylan then drops in on a fan site to thank Kevin for his lovely compliments, only to:
a) get totally trashed by the members of the board
b) find out that the radio discussion was not lauding him - IT WAS MAKING FUN OF HIS CRAPPY FILM.

Sorry, but you have to read the entire thread. Follow the links within links for the material not directly quoted, and listen to the radio blurbs.

Unfortunately - the problem is that there isn't a single quote to single out for the Stundie, it's like a the Stunbel (Stundie Nobel for a body of work) as opposed to the Stunditzer (Stundie Pulitzer for a single work). But the whole story is just so perfect that we have to find a way to include it.

Recap - not real quotes:
Dylan to Greasy Fanboys at LCF: Hey, I'm famous! I made it. I got mentioned by a bigtime director.
Mark Dice: Whoa, dude! Remember us little guys when you get to the top, and could we like come over and boff some of Hef's playmates at your pool?
DA to Smith Fans: Hey, it's me, Dylan the director that Smith likes so much!
Smith Fans: Get out of here you pathetic leper!
Smith Fans: Ewww, you suck, man!
Smith Fans: Spammer! We hate you.
DA to Smith Fans: But... but.... I just wanted to make a movie! Sniff!
Dylan to Greasy Fanboys at LCF: (deadly silence prevails)
As I mentioned on the cited thread, he thought he was going to pop in and raise their blood pressure that an upcoming star director was in their midst, and they trashed him like he hasn't been trashed in ages. Not real pleasant wading into an uncontrolled board, eh punk? (Read the thread linked to their site. They jumped on him so fast, it was hysterical. This is just a minor filmfan board, and THEY have his number. What kind of reception do you think he's going to get in Hollywood!

Mobyseven

6th June 2007, 05:15 AM

Hmm...tricky to include in The Stundies, because it would involve changing or at least bending the rules.

I'm going to mentally file this in the "That was the year that was" section of my brain, along with other memories such as the Realistice thread, that I plan to pull out of my bag of tricks at the end of the year.

Cuddles

7th June 2007, 07:35 AM

Of all the fantastical claims made by Malcolm, his firm denial of the English language is probably the cutest.

There is no such word as 'fantastical'.

Foolmewunz

7th June 2007, 09:01 AM

Moby, I've found a good compromise position. I was looking for the actual quote, and it turns out it's the title of the thread that Dylan started..... so it's a DA quote....

"And Now I Can Die Happy"
As DA totally misunderstands that one of his favored directors thinks his film is crap and that he's an idiot. (You can explain in as many paragraphs as you need to, but that's the nomination.....)

nicepants

7th June 2007, 10:07 AM

HeyLeroy

7th June 2007, 11:31 AM

From a thread about the "molten steel", 'Slaughtermeyer' weighs in:

I wonder if he can come up with any actual examples of steel being melted in a kiln.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10516&view=findpost&p=13765185

JonnyFive

7th June 2007, 01:26 PM

Of all the fantastical claims made by Malcolm, his firm denial of the English language is probably the cutest.

That's almost as funny as when he denied that the phrase "transitive verb" referred to a real thing. It's hilarious how he chides people about their poor grammar while simultaneously displaying horrendous grammar and spelling himself.

Hi-freaking-larious.

Remember, he's making lodsa dosh and could buy all our houses. ;)

Alareth

7th June 2007, 01:37 PM

That's almost as funny as when he denied that the phrase "transitive verb" referred to a real thing. It's hilarious how he chides people about their poor grammar while simultaneously displaying horrendous grammar and spelling himself.

Hi-freaking-larious.

Remember, he's making lodsa dosh and could buy all our houses. ;)

No worse than when one of pdoh's puppets insisted he was a corn fed american from the heartland, all the while using british spelling and grammar.

Belz...

7th June 2007, 03:19 PM

That's almost as funny as when he denied that the phrase "transitive verb" referred to a real thing. It's hilarious how he chides people about their poor grammar while simultaneously displaying horrendous grammar and spelling himself.

Actually, it's amazing how many people accuse other people of being wrong or bad at something they're far worst at, themselves. Especially in the woo camp.

Kent1

7th June 2007, 05:11 PM

Actually, it's amazing how many people accuse other people of being wrong or bad at something they're far worst at, themselves. Especially in the woo camp.
C7

"Scientists say administration distorts facts

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

The Bush administration has editorial control of all scientific publications.
They systematically distort scientific facts.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71744&page=65

It gets better when you read the article.

Mobyseven

7th June 2007, 07:36 PM

If audio was eligible for a Stundie, I would nominate:
the following exchange from the Mike Chambers show last night (http://911.husseh.com/audio/arlo.mp3). (MP3) ~3min

I guess the caller didn't have an understanding of a delay.

(Normally I don't listen but I apparently still had my recorder running)

Audio IS eligible, IF you nominate a specific statement from the show. Similar to the rules on video. And now I have another addition to make to the rules next month (just to include the words "and audio" mind you).

Moby, I've found a good compromise position. I was looking for the actual quote, and it turns out it's the title of the thread that Dylan started..... so it's a DA quote....

"And Now I Can Die Happy"
As DA totally misunderstands that one of his favored directors thinks his film is crap and that he's an idiot. (You can explain in as many paragraphs as you need to, but that's the nomination.....)

No problem, that I can consider.

I'm still filing it under 'That was the year that was' though! :)

8den

8th June 2007, 02:34 AM

George Hayduke on the loose Change forum pads out Steven Jones' CV

the BYU physicist who used to run exotic weaponry development programs for Los Alamos Nat

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10411

jhunter1163

8th June 2007, 02:56 AM

Let's have a rock concert for twoof!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10563

Then we'll have a car wash for peace
There'll be no more wars
Or dirty cars
Car wash for peace!

[/JimmyFallon]

Belz...

8th June 2007, 04:39 AM

There are NO coincidences. Just so you know.

The police do not believe in coincidence.

twinstead

8th June 2007, 04:42 AM

There are NO coincidences. Just so you know.

Insane asylums can have internet access. Malcolm is posting on an internet forum.

Coincidence? I think not.

uk_dave

8th June 2007, 06:31 AM

ERobertG:
The great historian Webster G. Tarpley, wrote about ‘Angel is next’ story, nearly two years ago in his book '9/11 Synthetic Terror'.

Now, CBS's 60 Minutes is just catching up...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/...ain521718.shtml

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10594

The punchline?

The date on the article he links to....

The President's Story
The President Talks In Detail About His Sept. 11 Experience

Sept. 10, 2003

Research people, research!

nicepants

8th June 2007, 08:01 AM

Audio IS eligible, IF you nominate a specific statement from the show.

Unfortunately the whole 3-minute exchange (http://911.husseh.com/audio/arlo.mp3) just illustrates the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the typical listener to twoofer internet "radio" shows.

If Stundie ever calls in to one of these shows, however, it will be GOLD!

Mobyseven

8th June 2007, 08:05 AM

nicepants

8th June 2007, 09:11 AM

I'll have a listen to that when I get to another computer. Unfortunately I can't consider it unless there is a specific statement made that you want to nominate. The link is appreciated regardless, though. :)

It's basically a guy calling into one of the truther radio shows, and for 2:55 out of the 3 minutes it's them and the listener trying to communicate, but the listener won't turn down his speakers and it's on a delay. So they ask: what's your name? and he says "from california" it's just funny :P

MortFurd

8th June 2007, 09:26 AM

It's basically a guy calling into one of the truther radio shows, and for 2:55 out of the 3 minutes it's them and the listener trying to communicate, but the listener won't turn down his speakers and it's on a delay. So they ask: what's your name? and he says "from california" it's just funny :P

It's worse than that. The guy called them on an internet telephone and he's listening to the show on his PC. The phone call and the radio show both go through his PC speakers. So the radio show guys tell him ot turn down his speakers, then he can't hear them any more so he turns it back up, at which time he hears a delayed part of the show. Since the internet phone and the radio shows have long delays, and the mic is hearing both the phone call and the radio show, the guy is getting multiple time delayed echos of everything.

I literally LOLed.

Civilized Worm

8th June 2007, 11:19 AM

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10411&view=findpost&p=13757099
And goddamnit it's important to know if Rodriguez was a magician, if he worked for this mind-war, mind control dude and if he's on the inside of Cuomo's circle. That's important to know.

It's important goddamnit!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10411&view=findpost&p=13758893
Many accused me of exploting 9/11. I am 9/11!

Belz...

8th June 2007, 12:09 PM

Damned magicians...

Alareth

8th June 2007, 12:17 PM

Insane asylums can have internet access. Malcolm is posting on an internet forum.

Coincidence? I think not.

Why not, I mean how long have the Browns been holed up with internet access.

Slayhamlet

8th June 2007, 12:20 PM

When challenged on his list of unsubstantiated 9/11 assertions, good Ol' Malky lays down his hard-hitting evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2674240&postcount=1598) that Flight 175 in fact never hit WTC2.

I beg to differ.
I said 175 didn't hit the south tower.
I have produced over 50 web sites that say the same thing, on this page alone.
I said the attack planes came from Offutt AFB. I am in the process of showing this.
In all of this, no one has produced one scintila of evidence to the contrary.

Also keep in mind that his "over 50" sites includes Killtown's among others of similar caliber.

PS: Malcolm isn't yet disqualified from the Stundies like Stundie is, is he?

Civilized Worm

8th June 2007, 02:07 PM

No but at this rate he will be soon.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10563&view=findpost&p=13773277
DONT FORGET exactly WHAT IT WAS
that killed john lennon.

NOW ITS KILLING US,

Mark Chapman, the bane of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2670624&postcount=1505
Being constantly told "Prove it", is childish, because proof isn't the standard here, common sense is.

[Stewart Lee]I'm not interested in facts![/Stewart Lee]

Civilized Worm

8th June 2007, 03:02 PM

More magic related paranoia from Georgie boy:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10411&view=findpost&p=13779013
So Will, how 'bout that magic show you did for Cuomo? Did you pull a rabit out of a hat? Some card tricks? What little deceptive acts did you pull that Cuomo found so impressive that he gave you total access to every room in the nation's economic headquarters?

Hitler was big on magic. It's true! He was huge into it. Had his scientists study black magic. Then when the war was over we brought those scientists here, to work here. They worked for the CIA, the Nazi magic-scientists did.

HyJinX

8th June 2007, 04:12 PM

WHO THINKS SHUTTLE WILL BE SABOTAGED ? TO CONVINCE US THAT THERE IS A THREAT, NOW THAT AMERICANS ARE PUSHING TO END THE WAR.

Ummmmmmm...WOW! You can cut the paranoia with a butterknife.

Cl1mh4224rd

8th June 2007, 04:13 PM

More magic related paranoia from Georgie boy:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10411&view=findpost&p=13779013
Hitler was big on magic. It's true! He was huge into it. Had his scientists study black magic.

I've never heard this before, except from the videogame Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

In fact, Wikipedia contradicts this: "However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism, and ridiculed such beliefs in his book Mein Kampf. Rather, Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_religious_beliefs

Elizabeth I

8th June 2007, 04:28 PM

...and one of our old reliables comes through with a classic:

Your truth that there is no truth literally violates re4ality, as there is always a truth happenning in reality.

Civilized Worm

8th June 2007, 05:38 PM

Who decides the progress of this thread, you?
Who decides the level of 'proof'.
How do you proceed if some obtuse person wants you not to?
I have presented evidence that 175 didn't hit the south tower. You mention the 'visual' evidence. Where is your 'visual' evidence?
Your response will be. MK asserted it, now prove it.
What standard of proof do you require?
The scientific absolute?
What happened to common sense. That is no longer relevant because someone says so?

He just doesn't stop!

Mobyseven

8th June 2007, 07:38 PM

People: Remember Rule Number One!

Malcolm Kirkman is not disqualified from the Stundies, and I have decided to wait for a little bit before introducing any award bearing his name. A couple of months at the least - don't forget that we've had people blow through before like this.

qarnos

8th June 2007, 10:33 PM

I nominate Sureshot for this post at LCF:

Apparently Tom Hanks doesn't visit real news websites.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm

linky (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2643466a3ba780b5d.jpg ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6270')

Redtail

8th June 2007, 10:52 PM

Another gem from quest.

Dylan,

I didn't start this thread to "prove" Hanks is CIA. I started it because I was disgusted of his views on war, the moon landing hoax and now JFK wasn't assasinated? Who knows if Hanks is CIA or not. I honestly don't know. However, I DO know however he is part of a propaganda machine and people should be alerted to it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609

Redtail

8th June 2007, 11:01 PM

Oh and this one.

You know what, ok...

lets say Oswald was the lone gunmen

lets say al qaeda carried out 9/11

THEYRE BOTH STILL black ops, because both of these scapegoats
were cultivated, brainwashed, trained, sheparded, etc by shadow elements of the US government and it's allies.

In my view 9/11 was the final act in a massive ritual trilogy that includes Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and JFK.

No matter what, the USG did it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609&st=100

beachnut

8th June 2007, 11:45 PM

Another gem from quest.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609
Still no signs of intelligent life at LCF. (there are some skeptics there, but the standard LCF poster misses the veiled make fun of the idiot's post, as they seamlessly fit in a zinger) Wait, I guess Sureshot posts are just dumb, and not making fun of LCF posters.

apathoid

9th June 2007, 04:05 AM

PS: Malcolm isn't yet disqualified from the Stundies like Stundie is, is he?

He should be.

Show me 50 that say arabs did do it.

Linkie. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2675990&postcount=1620)

Nobody can be this naive..........can they?

8den

9th June 2007, 05:42 AM

Horatius

9th June 2007, 05:43 AM

Another gem from quest.

...started it because I was disgusted of his views on war, the moon landing hoax and now JFK wasn't assasinated?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609

Direct link for that quote:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609&view=findpost&p=13780745

I had a hard time believing he actually meant to say "now JFK wasn't assasinated?", so I check the link....He said it twice (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609).

He supports the official moon landing hoax, retarded GI's in the military shooting M-16's is a good thing and now JFK wasn't assinated?

It wasn't a mistake.....He actually thinks Tom Hanks actually thinks JFK "wasn't assasinated". Okay, well this one is "assinated", but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one....

Horatius

9th June 2007, 05:46 AM

Quest is really on a roll (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609&view=findpost&p=13780775):

Ok Quest, but essentially you are saying it is ok to accuse anyone of anything without any proof.

Where were you yesterday when a dozen or so LC members were calling me disinfo and shill over the TV fakery thread?

Do these guys have any capacity for self-reflection, at all?

8den

9th June 2007, 08:50 AM

8 bit agent (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10593) shows us his where his gullibility reaches its breaking point.

I can buy Zionists funded Hitler, maybe even wanted the holocaust to get Israel, but theres nothing "hoaxish" about the holocaust

Civilized Worm

9th June 2007, 09:52 AM

I think I can top that.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609&view=findpost&p=13786411
You know what, ok...

lets say Oswald was the lone gunmen

lets say al qaeda carried out 9/11

THEYRE BOTH STILL black ops, because both of these scapegoats
were cultivated, brainwashed, trained, sheparded, etc by shadow elements of the US government and it's allies.

In my view 9/11 was the final act in a massive ritual trilogy that includes Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and JFK.

ETA: Damn, beaten to it.

stateofgrace

9th June 2007, 07:05 PM

Posted by US=illigallyblind @ LCF

I am here because I BELIEVE in the notion that "WE THE PEOPLE" have the obligation to stand up and FIGHT for what is being taken from us....our FREEDOMS. I cant sit back and let my ENEMY lure us around as if we are a flock of sheep... I must have the strength and fortitude to lead my fellow believers to pull back the wool from our eyes and see into the grim future that awaits us if left unchecked.

We cannot be judged by our thoughts, rather let us be judged by our actions taken to repel the evil that attempts to harm our way of living and everything this country was FOUNDED on. Our differences set aside, our common GOAL in mind, let us unite to stop the bleeding caused by these tyrants!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10384

I take it going for a few pints with your mates at the weekend and actually enjoying yourselves is out of the question then.

Kent1

9th June 2007, 08:20 PM

Chris7 continues his swin into the deep end. With the amount of Stundie type posts he's been making lately, sadly, I think he might be mentally ill. The overall general amount of super crazy CT posts have been going up

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2677625&postcount=2613

His statement refutes their opinion.
He is an expert, they are not.
It is not necessary nor would it be wise for Jowenko to write them and tell them that they are wrong.
Have they refuted his statement?

Civilized Worm

10th June 2007, 11:16 AM

The following quotes are froms Doug Plumb's e-mails to Pete Weaver:

The conventional explanation does not explain what Judy Woods has uncovered. She gives a talk with photos on her site Google "jane Doe Judy Wood". She is a Phd Structural Engineer and has other related degrees in material science. No one is more qualified than Judy Wood.

I've read Bezants paper but not enough to understand it. Its BS and full of unreasonable assumptions according to experts on our side.

I'm not a believer in qualifications but if you say you read that paper you are implying that you understood all that math. Having taught technologists math from all over the country I find that highly doubtful. I don't care about qualifications but you must always use dishonesty to support your arguement.

Take your pick.

Horatius

10th June 2007, 01:17 PM

The following quotes are froms Doug Plumb's e-mails to Pete Weaver:

Take your pick.

Are private e-mails acceptable? I think they would fail on the "providing links or screenshots" rule, as they are not accessable to everyone.

Mobyseven

10th June 2007, 07:13 PM

Are private e-mails acceptable? I think they would fail on the "providing links or screenshots" rule, as they are not accessable to everyone.

Bingo. As Stundie-licious as they were, they fail on Rule 1.

Travis

10th June 2007, 07:37 PM

The following quotes are froms Doug Plumb's e-mails to Pete Weaver:

Take your pick.

Doug Plumb: Trust Judy Wood because she has these qualifications.

Doug Plumb: I'm not a believer in qualifications!

Oh the hilarity, it's full of ironic, hypocritical goodness.:D

LashL

10th June 2007, 08:02 PM

Quest is really on a roll (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609&view=findpost&p=13780775):

Do these guys have any capacity for self-reflection, at all?

Alas, Quest has been on the receiving end of Dylan's ban hammer for raising the "no plane theory", so unless he is located on some other tinhat site, his contributions to the Stundies will, sadly, also come to an abrupt end.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10681

Cl1mh4224rd

10th June 2007, 08:05 PM

Anderson cooper was an intern to CIA during his enrollment in an ivy school (yale I think?) and attended CIA summer camps.

Once a CIA, always a CIA.
(Link (http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=%20screwloosechange%20&comment=6182325872401250326))

I get the distinct impression that the truthers feel that there must be about 30 million CIA agents in the U.S....

The Doc

11th June 2007, 03:09 AM

I nominate rob_mcc from the 911oz forums for this gem.

Image:
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1295/911ozhumorog0.jpg

Link:
http://www.911oz.com/forum/public/viewtopic.php?t=122

Quote:
In heaps and heaps of videos theses shots of birds flying across the shot. I believe the birds on 911 were going crazy fling around because of the explosions going on in the buildings.

gumboot

11th June 2007, 03:19 AM

uk_dave

11th June 2007, 03:25 AM

Mobyseven

11th June 2007, 03:28 AM

I have an odd stundie to offer up...

It is not from a website, but from a book. Thus there is no link, but the content of the book can be verified by anyone who owns it. Also, the book was published some time ago, but I offer up this Stundie now because I have only recently received my copy of the book.

-Gumboot

Hmm...I'm going to accept this for consideration on a few conditions. It may have been published some time ago, but as it is now coming back into the limelight a little bit I'm comfortable in allowing it to be considered for June.

The conditions are:

Two other people verify the existence of the quote. A little bit more context is given - primarily just which building he is talking about when he says that.

In addition to this, the same edition of this book may not be nominated again in the future, so any "Stundie" material from the book will have to be nominated this month.

This is working a little bit on the honour system - I'm relying on two other people who have read or who own the book to verify this quote. If it comes out later that the quote is incorrect, out of context, etc., I will consider disallowing nominations from books.

Does that sound fair?

gumboot

11th June 2007, 03:35 AM

Hmm...I'm going to accept this for consideration on a few conditions. It may have been published some time ago, but as it is now coming back into the limelight a little bit I'm comfortable in allowing it to be considered for June.

The conditions are:

Two other people verify the existence of the quote. A little bit more context is given - primarily just which building he is talking about when he says that.

In addition to this, the same edition of this book may not be nominated again in the future, so any "Stundie" material from the book will have to be nominated this month.

This is working a little bit on the honour system - I'm relying on two other people who have read or who own the book to verify this quote. If it comes out later that the quote is incorrect, out of context, etc., I will consider disallowing nominations from books.

Does that sound fair?

That sounds fair. Alternatively I might try get a photo of the page tomorrow, just in case. I know MikeW has a copy of the book.

The comment appears to be specifically talking about WTC2, although the context implies his claims are true of both WTC1 and WTC2.

I say WTC2 because the preceding sentences in the book refer to the fireball from UA175's impact, and the implications of this fireball occurring outside the building. The nominated statement is then raised in support of the conclusions drawn from the observation of the fireball.

My nomination is based not so much on the fact itself, but on the absurdity of the "photographs show" claim (presented as an absolute fact), as if there are stacks of photographs taken in the floors immediately around the impact floors which show piles of untouched paper. Regardless of whether the temperatures in surrounding floors were indeed hot or not, his statement is utterly absurd, because he claims the existence of evidence that not only does not exist, but any person with a scrap of logic would immediately realise could not possibly exist.

-Gumboot

Mobyseven

11th June 2007, 03:46 AM

That sounds fair. Alternatively I might try get a photo of the page tomorrow, just in case. I know MikeW has a copy of the book.

The comment appears to be specifically talking about WTC2, although the context implies his claims are true of both WTC1 and WTC2.

I say WTC2 because the preceding sentences in the book refer to the fireball from UA175's impact, and the implications of this fireball occurring outside the building. The nominated statement is then raised in support of the conclusions drawn from the observation of the fireball.

My nomination is based not so much on the fact itself, but on the absurdity of the "photographs show" claim (presented as an absolute fact), as if there are stacks of photographs taken in the floors immediately around the impact floors which show piles of untouched paper. Regardless of whether the temperatures in surrounding floors were indeed hot or not, his statement is utterly absurd, because he claims the existence of evidence that not only does not exist, but any person with a scrap of logic would immediately realise could not possibly exist.

-Gumboot

Goodo. A photo will do just as well, don't know why I didn't think of that.

Probably because you're smarter. :p

Belz...

11th June 2007, 04:56 AM

In my view 9/11 was the final act in a massive ritual trilogy that includes Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and JFK.

A ritual trilogy ? What the hell is he blabbering about ?

Civilized Worm

11th June 2007, 05:02 AM

Bingo. As Stundie-licious as they were, they fail on Rule 1.

Can't Pete forward them to you? I'd hate to see such wonderful Stundieness excluded on a technicality.

apathoid

11th June 2007, 07:00 AM

Whole quote:
okay, I myself am not a strong believer in the no plane theory, however, i was just thinking, because there are no reports of the planes (like eyewitness, seeing them) besides the control tower, couldn't they have just turned the holograms or whatever on right as they entered the place where most people could see it?

Link. (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10701&view=findpost&p=13806496)

"......because there are no reports of the planes (like eyewitness, seeing them)....."

Are sentence fragments acceptable? The whole statement is freakin' out there, but the bit I highlighted above can surely stand on it's own.....can't it?

maccy

11th June 2007, 07:22 AM

Alas, Quest has been on the receiving end of Dylan's ban hammer for raising the "no plane theory", so unless he is located on some other tinhat site, his contributions to the Stundies will, sadly, also come to an abrupt end.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10681

The fun continues over here:

http://forum.911movement.org/

And this one has Killtown as well.

Horatius

11th June 2007, 08:34 AM

The fun continues over here:

http://forum.911movement.org/

And this one has Killtown as well.

Yeah, this forum puts the "Peak Truth" therories out to pasture. Slick says (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=52&view=findpost&p=13414964), in a discussion of Quest (and others) being labelled "disinfo":

Yes, that's what really bothers me. If they don't agree with your findings, they accuse you of being partially responsible for the death of over 3,000 people..And they see nothing wrong with this logic.

The twoof shall flow, forever!

Cuddles

11th June 2007, 09:57 AM

Yet another one from good old Mal

Basically, if they don't exist, why have they been made?

Short, sweet and batpoo insane.

Incidentally, from the same post, apparently the word "fantastical" still doesn't exist.
What is the difference in meaning of 'fantastic' and the ludicrous 'fantastical'?

Alareth

11th June 2007, 05:26 PM

Incidentally, from the same post, apparently the word "fantastical" still doesn't exist.

Wasn't malcolm arguing that he was a mensa member with a ridiculously high IQ somewhere at the beginning of that thread?

JimBenArm

11th June 2007, 06:25 PM

Wasn't malcolm arguing that he was a mensa member with a ridiculously high IQ somewhere at the beginning of that thread?
Well, that's what he claimed. However, considering the Stundie quotient coming from just that thread, I doubt his claims could ever be substantiated.

Mobyseven

11th June 2007, 07:01 PM

Whole quote:

Link. (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10701&view=findpost&p=13806496)

"......because there are no reports of the planes (like eyewitness, seeing them)....."

Are sentence fragments acceptable? The whole statement is freakin' out there, but the bit I highlighted above can surely stand on it's own.....can't it?

Yes, sentence fragments (given the context is known) are appropriate. The DRG finalist from March was a sentence fragment.

Can't Pete forward them to you? I'd hate to see such wonderful Stundieness excluded on a technicality.

If Pete forwards them to me at this address (stundie.awards@gmail.com) I'll consider them.

qarnos

11th June 2007, 07:28 PM

Well, that's what he claimed. However, considering the Stundie quotient coming from just that thread, I doubt his claims could ever be substantiated.

Hmmm... The Stundie Quotient. I like that!

That could be used to rank threads in the same vein as MarkyX's Time To Lie is used to rank videos. :D

Foolmewunz

11th June 2007, 09:43 PM

An old friend of ours pops in with a leading candidate for Incomprehensible Sentence of the Week.

Craig's now wearing his rank on his sig!

It's in the interminable What Hit The Pentagon thread.

Please read slowly. Whew!
Craig Ranke CIT
It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence which the evidence that contradicts it proves is the deception the first place.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=150

AZCat

11th June 2007, 09:55 PM

gumboot

11th June 2007, 10:15 PM

An old friend of ours pops in with a leading candidate for Incomprehensible Sentence of the Week.

Craig's now wearing his rank on his sig!

It's in the interminable What Hit The Pentagon thread.

Please read slowly. Whew!
Craig Ranke CIT

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=150

That's phenomenal.

Apart from the utter insanity of the statement, it's also exceedingly ironic.

Let's call evidence that the Pentagon official account is a deception (X) and evidence in support of the Pentagon official account (Y).

He's saying it's circular reasoning to argue that evidence (X) is refuted by evidence (Y) because evidence (X) refutes evidence (Y).

Thus his argument that it is circular reasoning is, in fact, itself circular reasoning.

-Gumboot

defaultdotxbe

11th June 2007, 10:47 PM

Alareth

11th June 2007, 10:53 PM

That's phenomenal.

Apart from the utter insanity of the statement, it's also exceedingly ironic.

Let's call evidence that the Pentagon official account is a deception (X) and evidence in support of the Pentagon official account (Y).

He's saying it's circular reasoning to argue that evidence (X) is refuted by evidence (Y) because evidence (X) refutes evidence (Y).

Thus his argument that it is circular reasoning is, in fact, itself circular reasoning.

-Gumboot

From the same thread, after Dylan points out that he sounds paranoid by calling anyone that disagrees with him a "jref'r" (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&view=findpost&p=13815869)

Dude acts like one and lied like one in this thread.

Jref is eponymous for 9/11 truth skeptic.

Foolmewunz

11th June 2007, 11:10 PM

From the same thread, after Dylan points out that he sounds paranoid by calling anyone that disagrees with him a "jref'r" (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&view=findpost&p=13815869)

The amount of time they spent discussing the definition of "yaw" in that thread, you'd think he'd be careful before using a word like eponym/eponymous incorrectly. Dolt!

qarnos

12th June 2007, 12:14 AM

I followed your advice and read slowly, but it did not make any more sense that way.

I think this is not because of me? :confused:

It took me a few tries, but I eventually managed to dechiper it (I think) by changing a word, deleting another and adding another word and a comma:

It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence, when the evidence that contradicts it proves the deception in the first place.

Travis

12th June 2007, 01:57 AM

If thread titles could qualify then this would be a good one.

Is It Me Or Is It Since Bush Declared Himself, dictator - has the movement went quite.. (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10679)

By JQpublic.

The thread itself is pretty hilarious too.

Fellow truthers, fear not, it is only the calm before the storm. I have sensed and noticed this since attending 9/11 Visibility Day when it started on 2/11/07.

Mobyseven

12th June 2007, 02:57 AM

Thread titles are eligible, subject to the same rules as everything else.

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 03:44 AM

Did I miss "911 Visibility Day"?

Travis

12th June 2007, 04:03 AM

Did I miss "911 Visibility Day"?

Apparently I missed it too. I suspect it would have enraged me so it's probably for the better.

Cl1mh4224rd

12th June 2007, 04:30 AM

Did I miss "911 Visibility Day"?

I didn't see it...

Belz...

12th June 2007, 04:32 AM

Poor Malcolm...

We live in a sea, just like fish do. We live in a sea of air. The higher up you go, the thinner our sea of air gets. So much so, that at five miles high, it's all gone. How strong a nose do you need to fly through that?

Indeed. No air at five miles altitude. Don't forget your spacesuits at the top of Everest, people.

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 04:52 AM

I don't think the statements below qualify for a Stundie, but the sentiment is so stupid combined with the video they're talking about that it deserves a look. (I also didn't think this merited a separate thread, and we do most of our Loon-Spotting in this thread, so felt it appropriate to post here.)

TheHighwayManq posted a link to a Kucinich meeting where he asks the crowd how many of them aren't satisfied with the 911 investigation to date (I paraphrase). The OP says:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10708

TheHighwayManq
When he asked how many in the crowd shared concerns about 9/11 , almost everyone raised their hand or clapped.

And then this from a perennial favorite of mine:

Headhunter
Did you hear that crowd? Music to my ears. We're breaking past the 50% mark now, for a LIHOP/MIHOP combined percentage. And when you get that far, going the rest of the way should be relatively easy. Why? Because the "medium" of the message is many to many, not one to many like the MSM, and because the information, in terms of belief with commitment, is a one way street and the information available, is like drinking from a fire hydrant. The movement, as the movement of the truth, is really like MOVING now, BIG TIME! :)

The only problem with the above - which seems to escape them, are:

a) Per the OP.... THERE IS NO CROWD SHOT! The camera does not move off of Kucinich! How the Hell does he know "almost everyone" responded as he hopes in his wetdreams they are responding?

b) Headhunter - "50%"??? Listen to the audio and tell me how many people clap and/or shout "woo"! (Ed Bless Them For That!) They do try to sound enthusiastic and numerous, but it's not that great a number. Yet, since we don't know (no camera shot) how many people are in the room, you can't say 50%, can you?
On the other hand.... listen to the laughter when Kucinich makes with a joke about stacking his audiences. There are far more voices laughing spontaneously (and not trying to raise the volume intentionally) than there were troofers yapping it up when he asked the question they're so excited about.

In short - they're deluded.

Here's the video for comparison - it's short.....

QYpgCt

chipmunk stew

12th June 2007, 05:37 AM

I don't know, I think this is pretty Stundie-worthy:...the information...is like drinking from a fire hydrant.

Horatius

12th June 2007, 06:18 AM

Here's the video for comparison - it's short.....

QYpgCt-s808

Fixed your youtube link!

gumboot

12th June 2007, 06:49 AM

Please read slowly. Whew!
Craig Ranke CIT
It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence which the evidence that contradicts it proves is the deception the first place.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=150

I keep coming back to this sentence. I still cannot believe it was written by a human being, and not a chimpanzee on a typewriter. I cannot fathom what sort of nomination could wrest my vote away from this pearl of a remark.

Mobyseven, I will be most disappointed if this one does not make the finals!

-Gumboot

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 07:10 AM

Fixed your youtube link!

Thanks... the phone rang and I didn't double-check the link in the "preview" which I always do. That'll learn me!

ETA: Dang! Missed the deadline to edit the post and fix it there.

Papermache

12th June 2007, 07:16 AM

I don't know, I think this is pretty Stundie-worthy:Perhaps Headhunter was inspired by this.Former MIT President ['71-'80] Jerome Weisner coined a colorful and often quoted description of the MIT educational experience:

"Getting an Education from MIT is like taking a drink from a Fire Hose."

chipmunk stew

12th June 2007, 07:38 AM

Perhaps Headhunter was inspired by this.Former MIT President ['71-'80] Jerome Weisner coined a colorful and often quoted description of the MIT educational experience:

"Getting an Education from MIT is like taking a drink from a Fire Hose."
Huh. I'd never heard that before. It's a strange simile, isn't it? Doesn't sound like much of an education.

...Wait, is Headhunter comparing Truthiness indoctrination to an MIT education?!?

HeyLeroy

12th June 2007, 11:43 AM

I keep coming back to this sentence. I still cannot believe it was written by a human being, and not a chimpanzee on a typewriter. I cannot fathom what sort of nomination could wrest my vote away from this pearl of a remark.

Mobyseven, I will be most disappointed if this one does not make the finals!

-Gumboot

Thirded.

http://liveu-97.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1191597L.jpg

Slayhamlet

12th June 2007, 12:23 PM

nicepants

12th June 2007, 12:35 PM

After claiming that Steven Jones' paper was peer-reviewed, Earthquake of LCF was asked what scientific publication it was submitted to...

It wasn't published in any scientific publication. Though this means nothing anyhow. He published it online.

Because publishing online is the ultimate way to get credibility.....just ask Killtown...

and my personal favorite....

Peer-Review means NOTHING!

-bolding was his.

Link to post (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10415&view=findpost&p=13811739)

Screenshot (for those banned)
(http://911.husseh.com/images/boards/lcf/quake1.png)

Gravy

12th June 2007, 12:36 PM

There is apparently a shortage of Oxford English Dictionaries at Oxford:

It may be a roadblock, but clearly doesnt stop the overwhelming preponderance of their desired military plans.

nicepants

12th June 2007, 12:46 PM

There is apparently a shortage of Oxford English Dictionaries at Oxford:

LOL he must be referring to those ever-elusive optional roadblocks

tacodaemon

12th June 2007, 12:47 PM

You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?

Oh Malcolm, Malcolm, Malcolm... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2684414&postcount=1768)

Hey, I came in here to nominate that one for a Stundie!

I would have started with the "There was practically..." since that works outside context, though. (The context was why Edna Cintron was standing in the hole at the edge of the North Tower in those famous photos; Malcolm was told it was because the plane had plowed pretty much everything into the building so there wasn't much to burn right at the edge of the entry hole.)

qarnos

12th June 2007, 02:04 PM

I keep coming back to this sentence. I still cannot believe it was written by a human being, and not a chimpanzee on a typewriter. I cannot fathom what sort of nomination could wrest my vote away from this pearl of a remark.

Mobyseven, I will be most disappointed if this one does not make the finals!

-Gumboot

When I read things like that I can't help but think it's one of our NWO operatives going undercover.

I mean... it's just so... ridiculous!

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 03:27 PM

Ya know what'd be really fun. Place that one post, only, in the finals... sit back with a nice bottle of zinfandel, and watch William deconstruct and defend it.

:popcorn2

tacodaemon

12th June 2007, 03:51 PM

Ya know what'd be really fun. Place that one post, only, in the finals... sit back with a nice bottle of zinfandel, and watch William deconstruct and defend it.

Yeah, as much as I like that Kirkman quote about no carpeting or other flammable things inside the WTC (I even put up a whole post of pictures of carpeting inside the WTC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2684753#post2684753)), I think Lyte/Craig's got a good shot for a second Stundie. Would that make him the first to repeat?

gumboot

12th June 2007, 04:59 PM

Mobyseven

12th June 2007, 05:44 PM

I sense a disturbance in the farce...like a handful of JREFers cried out suddenly for a Craig Ranke quote, and then were silenced by a kitty.

R.Mackey

12th June 2007, 08:45 PM

An old friend of ours pops in with a leading candidate for Incomprehensible Sentence of the Week.

Craig's now wearing his rank on his sig!

It's in the interminable What Hit The Pentagon thread.

Please read slowly. Whew!

It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence which the evidence that contradicts it proves is the deception the first place.

Hokey smokes. Missed this one.

I think Lyte just broke teh Stundies.

tacodaemon

12th June 2007, 10:14 PM

Hokey smokes. Missed this one.

I think Lyte just broke teh Stundies.

The scary thing is that, being familiar with Lyte's work, I actually understand what he meant by that sentence.

He acknowledges all the evidence that a plane approached from the south of the Citgo and hit the Pentagon. Let's call this "the physical evidence".

However, he considers the physical evidence to have been faked as part of "the deception". Therefore, in his mind, it doesn't make sense to use the physical evidence to argue that "the deception" didn't happen.

As proof that the deception did happen, he points to his other "evidence" -- eyewitnesses pointing to an approach north of the Citgo. Let's call this "the eyewitness evidence".

So his sentence means: "It's circular reasoning to invalidate the eyewitness evidence by citing the physical evidence, because the eyewitness evidence proves that the physical evidence is part of the deception."

He's cracked.

gumboot

12th June 2007, 10:42 PM

The scary thing is that, being familiar with Lyte's work, I actually understand what he meant by that sentence.

He acknowledges all the evidence that a plane approached from the south of the Citgo and hit the Pentagon. Let's call this "the physical evidence".

However, he considers the physical evidence to have been faked as part of "the deception". Therefore, in his mind, it doesn't make sense to use the physical evidence to argue that "the deception" didn't happen.

As proof that the deception did happen, he points to his other "evidence" -- eyewitnesses pointing to an approach north of the Citgo. Let's call this "the eyewitness evidence".

So his sentence means: "It's circular reasoning to invalidate the eyewitness evidence by citing the physical evidence, because the eyewitness evidence proves that the physical evidence is part of the deception."

He's cracked.

He's using circular reasoning to prove that our argument refuting his claims is circular reasoning, while oblivious to the fact that his claims are themselves circular reasoning.

It's Stundilicious!

-Gumboot

Alareth

12th June 2007, 10:53 PM

He's using circular reasoning to prove that our argument refuting his claims is circular reasoning, while oblivious to the fact that his claims are themselves circular reasoning.

It's Stundilicious!

-Gumboot

We are on the verge of an infinite recursive loop that will cause the universe to collapse upon itself ...

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 11:04 PM

We are on the verge of an infinite recursive loop that will cause the universe to collapse upon itself ...

Ha! That's what they want you to think. After the event, wanna bet we'll have the last remaining creature in the universe crawling up out of the muck on some planetoid, and saying to whatever other creatures are there to listen,
Whoa dude! Did you see that? Like the whole universe doesn't just collapse like that in near free fall. That was a controlled demolition universe collapse if I ever saw one! Just look at this video... ignore the first 2.7 million years and check out the part at 2,700,012:11:32! You can clearly see a guy in a yellow hat out around the Van Allen Belt. And how come they conveeeeniently declassified Pluto as a planet almost exactly 8 years and 3 months before it happened? That's 99, man! 99 months!!! Freakin' coincidence? I don't think so!

Redtail

12th June 2007, 11:08 PM

defaultdotxbe

12th June 2007, 11:22 PM

We are on the verge of an infinite recursive loop that will cause the universe to collapse upon itself ...
i tried to destroy the universe once, i strapped buttered toast to my cats back and dropped her, rather than spinning rapidly to create a singularity she landed on her feet and proceeded to get buttered toast all over the living room

Foolmewunz

12th June 2007, 11:27 PM

i tried to destroy the universe once, i strapped buttered toast to my cats back and dropped her, rather than spinning rapidly to create a singularity she landed on her feet and proceeded to get buttered toast all over the living room

:D :D :D (I don't have a laughing dog, so three grinning green guys will have to do!)

Now, it's my turn to worry! I actually understood the hilarity of that paragraph.

For lurkers who think we're insane: Surely the universe would end if fate had to decide whether the cat would land on all fours or the toast would land butter-side down.

Methinks we're spending too much time with these guys!

Travis

13th June 2007, 12:05 AM

i tried to destroy the universe once, i strapped buttered toast to my cats back and dropped her, rather than spinning rapidly to create a singularity she landed on her feet and proceeded to get buttered toast all over the living room

I tried to destroy the universe, or at least our locale in it, by colliding Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, or perhaps a Higgs boson, with Rosie O'Donnell. Unfortunately, as people who actually know physics kept telling me, nothing happened.

Foiled ! But if I can get my anti-matter bomb to work, then we have something to fear again... or for the first time!

Corsair 115

13th June 2007, 12:11 AM

Foiled ! But if I can get my anti-matter bomb to work, then we have something to fear again... or for the first time!Hmmm, if you're looking for doomsday devices, might I suggest getting in touch with Professor Farnsworth? He seems to have had made a number of them from what I recall...

Travis

13th June 2007, 12:28 AM

Hmmm, if you're looking for doomsday devices, might I suggest getting in touch with Professor Farnsworth? He seems to have had made a number of them from what I recall...

I bet he can part with one and still be feared.

Wow I think I just broke through some thermocline layer of geekiness to be using quotes like that.

And I just used the word "thermocline!" There is no hope for me.:D

Corsair 115

13th June 2007, 12:39 AM

I bet he can part with one and still be feared.

Wow I think I just broke through some thermocline layer of geekiness to be using quotes like that.Not at all! The world needs more Futurama.

"I'm a connaisseur of jerks who pick fights in movie theaters, and you're the biggest I've ever seen."
"You should see me at funerals."

"You robots are a disgrace to this university. Whenever a fire alarm is pulled, it's Robot House. Whenever the campus liquor store is looted, Robot House. Whenever a human corpse is desecrated--"
"Now, I can explain that."

slingblade

13th June 2007, 12:53 AM

Apparently I missed it too. I suspect it would have enraged me so it's probably for the better.

Enrage you? It's my birthday. Stoopid twoofers. :mad:

Alareth

13th June 2007, 01:10 AM

nder:D :D :D (I don't have a laughing dog, so three grinning green guys will have to do!)

Now, it's my turn to worry! I actually understood the hilarity of that paragraph.

For lurkers who think we're insane: Surely the universe would end if fate had to decide whether the cat would land on all fours or the toast would land butter-side down.

Methinks we're spending too much time with these guys!

Ponder this, "An infinite number of rednecks shooting at road signs from pickups, over an infinite amount of time, will eventually recreate all the works of Shakespeare in braille."

Foolmewunz

13th June 2007, 01:17 AM

nder

Ponder this, "An infinite number of rednecks shooting at road signs from pickups, over an infinite amount of time, will eventually recreate all the works of Shakespeare in braille."

Coincidentally, I just had an exchange yesterday with Hokulele on the modern variation of the line from whence the above is taken.... With Lyte and Malcolm doing their thing this month, it seems appropriate to quote it in this thread.

I've been saving that for one of my later sig changes.

Robert Willensky, UC Berkley....

Quote:
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
Robert Wilensky, speech at a 1996 conference

Travis

13th June 2007, 01:40 AM

Enrage you? It's my birthday. Stoopid twoofers. :mad:

That must be annoying to you. But, heck, they'll probably declare my birthday to be FEMA Death Camp Awareness Day or something.

Belz...

13th June 2007, 04:42 AM

Yeah, those have nothing to do with one another...

What has terminal velocity got to do with free fall speed?

Belz...

13th June 2007, 04:44 AM

No matter how hot it is, it won't fail unless it melts, according to this guy:

Made pliable is not made weak. A swordmaker could run you through with a red hot sword just as easily as with a cold one.

HeyLeroy

13th June 2007, 11:19 AM

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

Umm...

tacodaemon

13th June 2007, 12:41 PM

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

Umm...

Another example of the famous CTer power of projection.

And 28th Kingdom + Truthseeker1234 is still 720 short of mjd1982.

jackchit

13th June 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus
My friend (Who likes getting cash for these things) gained money for slipping over and cracking her knee open at work, apart from not meticulously checking his footsteps every second, does that mean she was responsible?

This personal friend of UW changes gender twice within one post

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2688354#post2688354

Undesired Walrus

13th June 2007, 04:48 PM

This personal friend of UW changes gender twice within one post

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2688354#post2688354

Thanks Jackchit, now I have the honour of standing amongst all you adorable children in the great assembly hall of Stundiness. Can I be like that annoying kid who sings different lines to "Morning has broken" at the back?

That said, given your preference for 'standing tall against the man' I guess singing different lines to school hymns was a traditional practice for all young truthers who thought changing lyrics to well known school songs was on par to children surviving four years in auschwitz huh?

Metullus

13th June 2007, 05:22 PM

Another gem from quest.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10609
RT - I just now read your sig. I damn near pissed my pants!

AZCat

13th June 2007, 05:28 PM

This personal friend of UW changes gender twice within one post

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2688354#post2688354

This is probably doesn't qualify because of rule 8: No speeling mistikes. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while!

JimBenArm

13th June 2007, 05:36 PM

This is probably doesn't qualify because of rule 8: No speeling mistikes. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while!
Well, considering this is probably the best they can come up with, what say we let it stay? Just so it's not a complete shutout!

AZCat

13th June 2007, 06:05 PM

Well, considering this is probably the best they can come up with, what say we let it stay? Just so it's not a complete shutout!

It's not even funny. I might give it a pass if it was, but the slip-up is quite obvious and the post nominating it does not do a good job (IMO) of presenting it. If, for example, he had pointed out the similarity to the slip-up in the Beatles' song "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" then I would have found it interesting.

Mobyseven

13th June 2007, 08:18 PM

Thanks Jackchit, now I have the honour of standing amongst all you adorable children in the great assembly hall of Stundiness. Can I be like that annoying kid who sings different lines to "Morning has broken" at the back?

That said, given your preference for 'standing tall against the man' I guess singing different lines to school hymns was a traditional practice for all young truthers who thought changing lyrics to well known school songs was on par to children surviving four years in auschwitz huh?

Heh, as much as you won't like this, I did have a bit of a chuckle at your typo. Confused as to how it relates to a conspiracy theory though (aside from the fact that you often post in the CT subforum).

Also it doesn't really qualify because of the rule 8 violation.

Alareth

13th June 2007, 09:41 PM

After Spooked911 decides to delve into Apollo Hoax territory on his blog (linkage (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/06/last-great-american-tv-fakery-before.html#1607117187188040837)) and a couple of our regulars call him on the silliness, one poster makes the comment:

Attention All SHILLS:

If the U.S. had possessed the technology to put a man on the moon (and return him safely to Earth) in 1969, there wouldn't have been any reason to fake the Apollo mission.

qarnos

13th June 2007, 11:41 PM

Well, considering this is probably the best they can come up with, what say we let it stay? Just so it's not a complete shutout!

I agree - let them have their cake (sorry, UW).

gumboot

14th June 2007, 12:43 AM

Umm...

I think you'll find that he was actually pointing out to Gravy that he couldn't add...

Gravy claims he provided evidence that 95 questions were answered.

The Family Steering Committee said 28 were answered to their satisfaction, and a further 68 not to their satisfaction. I think he's point out that 28 + 68 do not equal 95, thus where did Gravy get his 95 figure from?

Least that's how I read it...

-Gumboot

Belz...

14th June 2007, 04:54 AM

Malcolm has the final argument against wood performing better than steel in a fire:

You burn wood in a steel stove. You don't burn steel in a wooden stove.

Belz...

14th June 2007, 04:55 AM

If the U.S. had possessed the technology to put a man on the moon (and return him safely to Earth) in 1969, there wouldn't have been any reason to fake the Apollo mission.

That explains why I feel dizzy. Must be all that circular stuff...

HawksFan

14th June 2007, 11:55 AM

As my first Stundie nomination, I'd like to add this little gem from earthquake over at LCF, who seems to summed up the main problem twoofers have with thinking:
2). Critics force us to think about what we think, and that can be painful, humbling, or just plain hard work.

Lifted from a thread about why peer review is bad.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10755

HeyLeroy

14th June 2007, 12:05 PM

I think you'll find that he was actually pointing out to Gravy that he couldn't add...

Gravy claims he provided evidence that 95 questions were answered.

The Family Steering Committee said 28 were answered to their satisfaction, and a further 68 not to their satisfaction. I think he's point out that 28 + 68 do not equal 95, thus where did Gravy get his 95 figure from?

Least that's how I read it...

-Gumboot

Durr.. now I see it. I missed that part in Gravy's post.

So, who wants to nominate Gravy? :D

HeyLeroy

14th June 2007, 12:31 PM

On the LC forum Badmachine pipes up regarding the recently-released 3D crash simulation from Purdue University. I'll bold the section I wanna nominate:

This simulation is pure speculation.

It presents the lightweight fuselage as having penetrated the core structure intact and shows it continuing to slice through flooring that is several feet thick and reinforced by concrete.

I feel the plane was mostly shredded by the extrerior columns and concrete reinforced flooring before it even reached the core, therefore causing little damage to it.

Aluminum and plastic vs. Concrete and steel.

No contest.
linky (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10798&view=findpost&p=13834674)

I didn't realize the floors were several feet thick. If the floors were "reinforced" with concrete I wonder what the primary material was?

uk_dave

14th June 2007, 12:48 PM

On the LC forum Badmachine pipes up regarding the recently-released 3D crash simulation from Purdue University. I'll bold the section I wanna nominate:

I didn't realize the floors were several feet thick. If the floors were "reinforced" with concrete I wonder what the primary material was?

After all this time and the real construction details of the wtc towers still haven't penetrated into their tiny minds. Thankfully none of them have important jobs.

HeyLeroy

14th June 2007, 12:53 PM

Thankfully none of them have important jobs.

http://liveu-60.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1220860L.jpg

uk_dave

14th June 2007, 12:54 PM

Crikey!!

tacodaemon

14th June 2007, 01:30 PM

Durr.. now I see it. I missed that part in Gravy's post.

So, who wants to nominate Gravy? :D

Gravy can debunk your very existence. That would not be propitious to policy.

Belz...

14th June 2007, 02:45 PM

On the LC forum Badmachine pipes up regarding the recently-released 3D crash simulation from Purdue University. I'll bold the section I wanna nominate:

I didn't realize the floors were several feet thick. If the floors were "reinforced" with concrete I wonder what the primary material was?

Hey, man. You can't counter his primary argument: he FEELS it.

Foolmewunz

14th June 2007, 04:41 PM

Just funny, not a Stundie nomination......

Our friend Craig in the same thread as his pearl of circular logic.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=200

It's quite odd to be honest with you.

What a difference a simple comma makes! Leave it out and you leave it out and he's finally speaking the truth!

chippy

14th June 2007, 09:19 PM

From Prison Planet...the author is unidentified, but let's just say that it was Alex Jones.

A major MSNBC poll currently has Paul at 30% approval, compared to Romney at 31%. McCain and Giuliani are at 21% and 27% respectively.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/040507ronpaul.htm

Add up those percentages. Somehow, only four of all of the GOP candidates make up 109% of U.S. popularity polls. Nice.

Gravy

14th June 2007, 09:42 PM

I think you'll find that he was actually pointing out to Gravy that he couldn't add...

Gravy claims he provided evidence that 95 questions were answered.

The Family Steering Committee said 28 were answered to their satisfaction, and a further 68 not to their satisfaction. I think he's point out that 28 + 68 do not equal 95, thus where did Gravy get his 95 figure from?

Least that's how I read it...

-GumbootYes, that's what he was trying to say. But I was using his figure of 27, which should earn me, if not a Stundie, an adomonition.

Slayhamlet

14th June 2007, 09:48 PM

From Prison Planet...the author is unidentified, but let's just say that it was Alex Jones.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/040507ronpaul.htm

Add up those percentages. Somehow, only four of all of the GOP candidates make up 109% of U.S. popularity polls. Nice.

Politicians are usually given individual approval ratings, so they're not supposed to add up I don't think. Unless it's different here?

chippy

15th June 2007, 04:38 AM

Yeah, it is...disregard it.

mortimer

15th June 2007, 01:47 PM

Ace shows us how those who faked the videos of planes hitting the WTCs forgot to put pretty red swirlies in the video.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2693641#post2693641

jackchit

15th June 2007, 05:08 PM

This is probably doesn't qualify because of rule 8: No speeling mistikes. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while!

I think its clear it wasn't a spelling mistake, if it was just one letter such as the usual TEH thats often written instead of THE I could agree, the poster was obviously impaired when making the post through drink most likely.
Therefore I think my nomination is valid and I expect it to be in the final vote.

(although it wont win, my money is on the... well you know what)

Cl1mh4224rd

15th June 2007, 05:18 PM

Therefore I think my nomination is valid and I expect it to be in the final vote.

Does an inflated ego make for a valid nomination?

jackchit

15th June 2007, 06:11 PM

Does an inflated ego make for a valid nomination?

yes that seems to be the norm.

gumboot

15th June 2007, 06:34 PM

Yes, that's what he was trying to say. But I was using his figure of 27, which should earn me, if not a Stundie, an adomonition.

Well yes, it seemed obvious to me you had used the 27 figure...

-Gumboot

Mobyseven

15th June 2007, 08:00 PM

I think its clear it wasn't a spelling mistake, if it was just one letter such as the usual TEH thats often written instead of THE I could agree, the poster was obviously impaired when making the post through drink most likely.
Therefore I think my nomination is valid and I expect it to be in the final vote.

(although it wont win, my money is on the... well you know what)

Well, gosh almighty Jack - there was a whopping great two-letter mistake rather than the normally accepted one-letter mistake.

I'll agree to consider it if you can justify its eligibility in accordance with rule two:

For a nomination to be eligible, it must have a real and obvious link to conspiracy theories, but not exclusively 9/11 conspiracy theories.

As of next month I will make the rules broader, so that typos are covered by the same rules as spelling mistakes - unless there is a lot of irony involved.

And just to be clear Jack, I go through a great many nominations each month. You have absolutely no right to demand that your nomination makes it through to the final vote, just as nobody else here does either.

Please, feel free to nominate posts for the Stundies, but make sure they comply with the rules, and don't think you get any special priveleges.

gumboot

15th June 2007, 08:15 PM

Mobyseven

15th June 2007, 10:18 PM

I'd like to nominate Mr Rodriguez from this video (which incidentally appears to have been posted on You Tube by Mr Rodriguez himself):

0DEUzuzqSLQ

01:48
Presenter: Did you know it was an explosion?
Mr Rodriguez: Oh yeah, for sure. For sure.

-Gumboot

I will definately consider it, as it is well within the rules.

I would, however like to ask a question - this is in light of your recent post about what makes a quote 'more' Stundie-worthy than another (which incidentally I mostly agree with) - are you nominating this because it is especially 'Stundie-worthy', or are you nominating it out of a visceral "I can't believe he said that," gut reaction?

gumboot

15th June 2007, 10:20 PM

I will definately consider it, as it is well within the rules.

I would, however like to ask a question - this is in light of your recent post about what makes a quote 'more' Stundie-worthy than another (which incidentally I mostly agree with) - are you nominating this because it is especially 'Stundie-worthy', or are you nominating it out of a visceral "I can't believe he said that," gut reaction?

I suppose it could be a bit of both, to be honest. When I nominated it I had in mind Arkan's "loud noise does not equal bomb" essay.

-Gumboot

Mobyseven

15th June 2007, 10:26 PM

I suppose it could be a bit of both, to be honest. When I nominated it I had in mind Arkan's "loud noise does not equal bomb" essay.

-Gumboot

No problem. I'll definately consider it.

stateofgrace

16th June 2007, 06:32 PM

A train

Given the above scenario and the drastically differing magnitudes of threat, we can say that for all intents and purposes, Islamic Terror really does not exist.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84629&page=2

jackchit

16th June 2007, 06:40 PM

Well, gosh almighty Jack - there was a whopping great two-letter mistake rather than the normally accepted one-letter mistake.

I'll agree to consider it if you can justify its eligibility in accordance with rule two:

As of next month I will make the rules broader, so that typos are covered by the same rules as spelling mistakes - unless there is a lot of irony involved.

And just to be clear Jack, I go through a great many nominations each month. You have absolutely no right to demand that your nomination makes it through to the final vote, just as nobody else here does either.

Please, feel free to nominate posts for the Stundies, but make sure they comply with the rules, and don't think you get any special priveleges.
Twas posted in the conspiracy sub forum, hence it must be conspiracy led.
Unless its been moved by the mods.
Its not a typo
its a post made with drink.

Gravy

16th June 2007, 06:46 PM

Rick Siegel stops by to let us know that...er...um...he can't tell us something...or something, and that French is not his strong suit.

It seems you have missed the pont. You can see the point in a recent video I still cannot post links to, or the story. You seemed to have missed one of the few points you can actually make.

In the meantime part ii of the exposing of their frauds will take place sometime tomorrow. You make faux passes at trying to get at the truth.

Alareth

16th June 2007, 09:06 PM

Ace decides to weigh in on the "spat" between Siegel ans Sophia:

Siegel's position is that Sophia is deliberately spreading disinformation, trying to promote "planes" and "thermite", when the evidence doesn't support it.

How many things does TS get right and how many things are wrong?

Mobyseven

16th June 2007, 09:28 PM

Twas posted in the conspiracy sub forum, hence it must be conspiracy led.
Unless its been moved by the mods.
Its not a typo
its a post made with drink.

Apologies, when I checked earlier I was sure it was in politics. My mind is playing tricks on me.

I will consider it for next month, but to be honest with you it would have to be a very slow month for the Stundies for it to make it through. Spelling mistakes and typos are against the spirit of the Stundies (unless they contain an absolute bucket-load of sweet, sweet irony - and even then!)

And yes, this was a typo, regardless of whether he was drunk or not - something you repeatedly state without having any proof that he is drunk.

To me, this nomination is about as worthy for consideration for the Stundies as, say, your post I am replying to is - it contains typos, not spelling errors. That is to say, of course, that neither of them are particularly "Stundie-worthy"...they just contain typos.

It will be considered, but I doubt it will survive among the other nominations.

And from this point, consider that the spelling rule applies to typos as well. I will revise the rule next month.

gumboot

16th June 2007, 11:33 PM

I would think spelling errors (including typos) should only qualify if they occur in a post in which the poster is reprimanding or otherwise criticising another posting for making a spelling error or typo.

For example:

Ha ha, it's "horse", nor "hrose". Man how can you axpect anyone to beleive your arguments when you can't even spell proply?

-Gumboot

Travis

16th June 2007, 11:56 PM

William Rea

17th June 2007, 01:39 AM

William Rea

17th June 2007, 01:40 AM

Does an inflated ego make for a valid nomination?

Yes, apparently ad Hominems are perfectly valid.

William Rea

17th June 2007, 01:53 AM

It's a fascinating study in the truth behind the 'truth'.

The kid thinks of himself as a good christian, but his desires make him loathe himself. He has an obsession with porn, but instead of taking responsibility for this himself, he seeks to blame some mysterious NWO or satanic cult for ensnaring him.

'Truthers' whine when we point out that a belief in the NWO/Illuminati/reptoids being behind 911 is a psychological condition manifesting itself as a desire to see an enemy they can blame for everything they hate about themselves and their lives, as opposed to a real enemy you can see on your tv screens but which has nothing to do with how bad they might be feeling about themselves at any given time.

And here we have this LCF poster who perfectly illustrates that mentality.

So, at the end of that series of personal attacks analysis of the posters personality does it qualify as a Stundie?

qarnos

17th June 2007, 02:37 AM

What exactly are you nominating HeyLeroy?

I think he is nominating the OPs assertion that "aluminium & plastic vs concrete and steel" is a "no contest" when the OP has not considered the energies involved nor does he seem to give any due consideration to the problem before dismissing it out-of-hand.

Granted, it is not the best of Teh Stundies this month has to offer, but it is certainly valid, nonetheless.

qarnos

17th June 2007, 03:31 AM

So, at the end of that series of personal attacks analysis of the posters personality does it qualify as a Stundie?

My personal opinion: No.

Though it was kinda funny that he blamed his porn obsession on the NWO.

Mobyseven

17th June 2007, 04:40 AM

Mobyseven

17th June 2007, 04:42 AM

My personal opinion: No.

Though it was kinda funny that he blamed his porn obsession on the NWO.

I personally find that nomination a little bit too disturbing. While it doesn't break any of the rules, it isn't really funny...to me it just paints the picture of a very disturbed kid.

The Doc

17th June 2007, 07:19 AM

**** you devil 666 NWO porn.

Hahaha!

Oh, I'm sorry. The term "666 NWO porn" just sounds like something out of family guy.

R.Mackey

17th June 2007, 05:15 PM

Newcomer Swing Dangler, among the ranks of those attacking Val McClatchey over her Flight 93 photograph, demonstrates his rejection of science:

Great. The physics match the photo. That does nothing to prove the validity of the photo. Unless you have the original digital file, the analysis is inconsequential.

Yes, "nothing" to prove the validity.

Pity the competition is so fierce this month.

Swing Dangler

17th June 2007, 09:11 PM

Rmackey, a long time poster at JREF ignores facts, gets it wrong, or worse lies?
Val is not profiting by this venture, but donates all money sent to Heroic Choices, a charity organization honoring Mr. Todd Beamer, a victim of Flight 93

Before her trouble with the AP, Mrs. McClatchey had licensed the use of her photo to various news organizations, including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Newsweek and ABC. She generally charged $250 to $350 for one-time use of the picture, admitting she did not know how much freelance photographers commanded.

She is seeking $150,000 in damages, contending the AP was guilty of "willful infringement" of the copyright.

Aside from marketing the photo to news companies, Mrs. McClatchey sold personal copies. She charged $20 for each, $18 of which went to the Todd Beamer Foundation. Mr. Beamer was a passenger on Flight 93. The rest of the money from personal sales went for paper and printing costs, her lawyers said.Source:Pittsburg GazettePittsburg-Post Gazette (http://livesite.pittsburghlive.com/pages/terrorism/photogallery_yearlater/shanksville/index.php?photo=3)

Attention Physics Professors there has been a change in the world of math. 20-18=20
I repeat, 20-18=20

Rmackey, long time poster, confuses fields of science:
Great. The physics match the photo. That does nothing to prove the validity of the photo. Unless you have the original digital file, the analysis is inconsequential.
Yes, "nothing" to prove the validity.
Pity the competition is so fierce this month.

So measuring a smoke plume on a still photo verifies the authenticity of a digital file stored on a multiple digital storage devices in the forms of 1's and 0's.
Paper and ink now equals 1's and 0's in the field of physics.
Yes, I must admit a rejection of science... when used incorrectly.

I do agree, the competition is fierce this month.