Stundie Finals For March - Vote Now!

[Brainache]

...I don't get it...

I think HeyLeroy is em-bare-assed.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

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

Wait...

...

...

...

...now I do.

 

[Mince]

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

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

 

[apathoid]

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

 

[Mobyseven]

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

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

Unfortunately I don't think this can be done.

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

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

 

[Ove]

Rosie O'Donnell is a guy?

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

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

 

[Mobyseven]

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starter for 10.

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

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

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

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

 

[Whiplash]

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

 

[Mobyseven]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starter for 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or will you silently disappear from this thread?

 

[chipmunk stew]

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

Except that the "Stundies" are not officially endorsed.

 

[Gravy]

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

 

[Unsecured Coins]

which came first again?

 

[humingbrd]

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

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

 

[Mobyseven]

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

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

 

[Brainache]

I bet Bill Rea is a real hoot at parties.

 

[humingbrd]

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

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

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

 

[HeyLeroy]

...I don't get it...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Trigood]

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

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

Originally Posted by NickJ1234
If 2 pigeons collided into the towers and they collasped, a group of peer reviewed analysists could scientifically explain that as well if it ment they HAD to find some explanation.

This quote shows a willful* misunderstanding of what the scientific method is about, which is taking the known and inferred facts and working from there.

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

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

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


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