Stundie Finals For March - Vote Now!

[Mobyseven]

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

No, I'm the smartest amoeba!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Then you need some remedial reading comprehension classes.

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

 

[Mobyseven]

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

Energy != Vector

 

[Mobyseven]

The "Botties" isn't snide?

More childish than anything.

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

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

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

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

 

[OMGturt1es]

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

 

[chipmunk stew]

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

If you feel that the "Stundies" are in violation of the membership agreement, take it up with the mods.

 

[Ove]

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

You mean like this :

 

[William Rea]

Energy != Vector

Are you saying gravitational energy has no directional sense?

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

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

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

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

QED

 

[William Rea]

More childish than anything.



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

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

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

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can I enquire upon the basis for this submission.

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

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

Dave

 

[William Rea]

Then you need some remedial reading comprehension classes.

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

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

Dave

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

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

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

 

[Oliver]

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

How could someone have fun without a sense of humor?

 

[Brainache]

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

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

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

When will you do anything but whinge?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

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

Dave

 

[chipmunk stew]

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

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

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

 

[stilicho]

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

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

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

Dave

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

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

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

 

[William Rea]

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

When will you do anything but whinge?

Is this all you have to contribute to the thread?

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