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...
Stundie Award Rules said:
- 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
