May 2007 Stundie Nominations

NickUK said:
We need a new award for rampant paranoia, because I'm not sure this is Stundie material, but I had to post it.

Sleepy (over at LCF) has been particularly bat-droppings loonytunes this week, but this offering asking if LCFers were going to turn him in once the glorious 4th reich NWO march coming soon to a city near you (JREFers, remember to dry clean your uniforms) is a gem.

So, I officially nominate this:



but here's the whole glorious post:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11019465819fcec5de.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

SHOOT!!! I was just gonna post this myself. Oh well.

Frankly I'm not sure if I should laugh at this kind of paranoia or feel sad that it exists at all.
 
Travis said:
SHOOT!!! I was just gonna post this myself. Oh well.

Frankly I'm not sure if I should laugh at this kind of paranoia or feel sad that it exists at all.
Click to expand...

Just smile indulgently and remind yourself that those people are mostly harmless.
 
uk_dave said:
Just smile indulgently and remind yourself that those people are mostly harmless.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I do most of the time anyways. Except for those awful days that I'm alive.
 
William Rea said:
I love watching you guys twisting yourselves in logical knots trying to justify the indefensible just because old Billy Rae decides to contradict you. Let's do facts shall we....

Fact 1. Post #282, where EugenAxeman is called out by Dave Rogers on the basis of Galileo's experiment that demonstrated that a more massive body falling under gravity does not accelerate faster.

Fact 2. EugeneAxman is arguing on the fact that a greater mass would have more destructive power to fall faster through the remaining structure he is NOT invoking Galileo!

Fact 3. I propose that Dave Rogers invoking of the Galileo experiment is in itself Stundie worthy.

It's all very well being technical but if the red mist descends and clouds your clarity of thought every time someone contradicts you then you will suck at applying your knowledge logically.
Click to expand...

Hey Bill, I have an idea: Why not start a thread devoted to debunking the Stundies? It's a bit radical I know, but I think it's an idea who's time has come.
Of course you would have to endure the berserk rage of all the affronted "skeptics", but I'm confident you can rise above it all.
 
William Rea said:
It's all very well being technical but if the red mist descends and clouds your clarity of thought every time someone contradicts you then you will suck at applying your knowledge logically.
Click to expand...
...said an expert in the field of backpedaling, prevaricating, and making stuff up when confronted with his false statements. :rolleyes:
 
Yep, as I suspected there's only one person around here that's able to keep to the facts.

For the remedial class I'll restate them...

Fact 1. Post #282, where EugenAxeman is called out by Dave Rogers on the basis of Galileo's experiment that demonstrated that a more massive body falling under gravity does not accelerate faster.

Fact 2. EugeneAxman is arguing on the fact that a greater mass would have more destructive power to fall faster through the remaining structure he is NOT invoking Galileo!

Fact 3. I propose that Dave Rogers invoking of the Galileo experiment is in itself Stundie worthy.


Go on, stick to the facts for just one post, I dares ya!
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
I was disappointed with the ending too.

I felt he spent way too much time with the arrogant, self-righteous but tragically naive eco-activist Hollywood actor who gets eaten by cannibals. The total non-event tsunami was also a let down. However the whole sequence in Antarctica was well done IMHO. Also, I learned more about jellyfish paralysis than I had ever wanted to know.
Click to expand...

Crichton is a molecular biologist by training, so of COURSE he's qualified to render expert opinions in any scientific field whatsoever.

[/twoofer logic]
 
William Rea said:
Fact 2. EugeneAxman is arguing on the fact that a greater mass would have more destructive power to fall faster through the remaining structure he is NOT invoking Galileo!

...

Go on, stick to the facts for just one post, I dares ya!
Click to expand...




Okay, so where in his post does he mention "a greater mass would have more destructive power to fall faster through the remaining structure"? Let's remember what he actually said:



In all of the footage I've seen, the building falls apart - ejecting huge volumes of material outward and in a very smooth fashion. Each tower collapsed at very near the same rate, even though the south tower was being acted upon by three times the mass. The physics just does not work out when you plug in values for the variables.

Now if you had both buildings rigged with the same type of demolition material, on the same timed sequence, then you could get different masses to fall at the same rate. But we do not wish to make that leap in assumption. So we just accept the NIST report, and assume that they modelled the buildings accurately.
Click to expand...




Nothing there about destructive power, or remaining structure. Lots there about "rates" and "mass", and an assertion that only "the same timed sequence, then you could get different masses to fall at the same rate", but nothing of what you alleged to be there.

You wouldn't be reading more into his statement than is there, would you? Isn't that what you chastise Dave Rogers for, when he "invokes Galileo"?
 
Dr. Greening demonstrates that, despite his formidable qualifications, he scored about the same as William Rea on the Social Intelligence test:
Apollo20 said:
Pomeroo:

"You're dealing with a group of people who are eager to embrace you as a champion of the scientific method"

Please don't make me laugh!

This site is about stifling debate.
Click to expand...
 
Please try and stay on topic William.
I am sure you will try harder in the future and your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
 
qarnos said:
Man, I hate it when that happens!
Click to expand...

Well at least SOMEONE caught that. :D

Or, perhaps, I'm delusional and came to think of myself as witty?

Man, I hate it when that happens.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Crichton is a molecular biologist by training, so of COURSE he's qualified to render expert opinions in any scientific field whatsoever.

[/twoofer logic]
Click to expand...

But I was about to go ask a Theologian what the dynamic carrying load of my new deck will be. Are you saying I might be miss-guided in doing so?

Next thing you know you'll tell me I shouldn't go ask my C.P.A. whether the Snowball Earth Theory is valid or not.
 
Travis said:
But I was about to go ask a Theologian what the dynamic carrying load of my new deck will be. Are you saying I might be miss-guided in doing so?

Next thing you know you'll tell me I shouldn't go ask my C.P.A. whether the Snowball Earth Theory is valid or not.
Click to expand...

If he has emphasis in Corporate Tax, he should be able to give you a good opinion on that.

I don't agree with the opinion of my mechanic on global warming. I shouldn't have been surprised, though, he's not ASE certified.
 
William Rea said:
Yep, as I suspected there's only one person around here that's able to keep to the facts.

For the remedial class I'll restate them...

Fact 1. Post #282, where EugenAxeman is called out by Dave Rogers on the basis of Galileo's experiment that demonstrated that a more massive body falling under gravity does not accelerate faster.

Fact 2. EugeneAxman is arguing on the fact that a greater mass would have more destructive power to fall faster through the remaining structure he is NOT invoking Galileo!
Click to expand...

Having not followed the thread in question, I will take your word for it that this is what transpired.

If this is the case, then it appears Dave Rogers either misunderstood what Eugene was arguing, or misunderstood Galileo's experiment.

Fact 3. I propose that Dave Rogers invoking of the Galileo experiment is in itself Stundie worthy.
Click to expand...

Then nominate it and stop carrying on with this Childlike-esque holier-than-thou attitude. Otherwise, take your debate to the thread in question and leave this one to The Stundies.
 
Belz... said:
Well, he had it coming:



Yes, indeed. None of that ridiculous research, physical evidence, expertise and logic. Youtube is all you ever need.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it. I'd like to also nominate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom