Stundie Finals For March - Vote Now!

[William Rea]

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

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

The Stundies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Or will you silently disappear from this thread?

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

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

 

[William Rea]

Just in case you doubt my analysis

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

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

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

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

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

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

 

[humingbrd]

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

The "Botties" isn't snide?

 

[William Rea]

The "Botties" isn't snide?

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

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

 

[rwguinn]

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

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

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

 

[uk_dave]

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

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



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

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

Starter for 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hyperviolet]

Had to be the Killtown quote. That is priceless.

 

[William Rea]

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

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

Says the man with over 2000 posts to his name?

 

[uk_dave]

Says the man with over 2000 posts to his name?

And every one a winner.

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

 

[William Rea]

And every one a winner.

Nice come back .

 

[Whiplash]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

-11-

Nominated by Dave Rogers

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


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

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

 

[William Rea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David Wong]

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

 

[LashL]

Go, Roscoe!

 

[Babbylonian]

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

Maybe it will be a tie and we could have William Rea break it!

 

[HeyLeroy]

I'm up to four votes!

W00t!

 

[chipmunk stew]

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

Take this quiz.

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