June 2007 Stundie Nominations

maccy said:
The fun continues over here:

http://forum.911movement.org/

And this one has Killtown as well.
Click to expand...



Yeah, this forum puts the "Peak Truth" therories out to pasture. Slick says, in a discussion of Quest (and others) being labelled "disinfo":


Yes, that's what really bothers me. If they don't agree with your findings, they accuse you of being partially responsible for the death of over 3,000 people..And they see nothing wrong with this logic.
Click to expand...


The twoof shall flow, forever!
 
Alareth said:
Wasn't malcolm arguing that he was a mensa member with a ridiculously high IQ somewhere at the beginning of that thread?
Click to expand...
Well, that's what he claimed. However, considering the Stundie quotient coming from just that thread, I doubt his claims could ever be substantiated.
 
apathoid said:
Whole quote:

Link.


"......because there are no reports of the planes (like eyewitness, seeing them)....."



Are sentence fragments acceptable? The whole statement is freakin' out there, but the bit I highlighted above can surely stand on it's own.....can't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, sentence fragments (given the context is known) are appropriate. The DRG finalist from March was a sentence fragment.

Civilized Worm said:
Can't Pete forward them to you? I'd hate to see such wonderful Stundieness excluded on a technicality.
Click to expand...

If Pete forwards them to me at this address I'll consider them.
 
JimBenArm said:
Well, that's what he claimed. However, considering the Stundie quotient coming from just that thread, I doubt his claims could ever be substantiated.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... The Stundie Quotient. I like that!

That could be used to rank threads in the same vein as MarkyX's Time To Lie is used to rank videos. :D
 
An old friend of ours pops in with a leading candidate for Incomprehensible Sentence of the Week.

Craig's now wearing his rank on his sig!

It's in the interminable What Hit The Pentagon thread.

Please read slowly. Whew!
Craig Ranke CIT
It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence which the evidence that contradicts it proves is the deception the first place.
Click to expand...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=150
 
Foolmewunz said:
An old friend of ours pops in with a leading candidate for Incomprehensible Sentence of the Week.

Craig's now wearing his rank on his sig!

It's in the interminable What Hit The Pentagon thread.

Please read slowly. Whew!
Craig Ranke CIT


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=150
Click to expand...



That's phenomenal.

Apart from the utter insanity of the statement, it's also exceedingly ironic.

Let's call evidence that the Pentagon official account is a deception (X) and evidence in support of the Pentagon official account (Y).

He's saying it's circular reasoning to argue that evidence (X) is refuted by evidence (Y) because evidence (X) refutes evidence (Y).

Thus his argument that it is circular reasoning is, in fact, itself circular reasoning.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
That's phenomenal.

Apart from the utter insanity of the statement, it's also exceedingly ironic.

Let's call evidence that the Pentagon official account is a deception (X) and evidence in support of the Pentagon official account (Y).

He's saying it's circular reasoning to argue that evidence (X) is refuted by evidence (Y) because evidence (X) refutes evidence (Y).

Thus his argument that it is circular reasoning is, in fact, itself circular reasoning.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
thats what i got out of it too, very stundiesque indeed
 
gumboot said:
That's phenomenal.

Apart from the utter insanity of the statement, it's also exceedingly ironic.

Let's call evidence that the Pentagon official account is a deception (X) and evidence in support of the Pentagon official account (Y).

He's saying it's circular reasoning to argue that evidence (X) is refuted by evidence (Y) because evidence (X) refutes evidence (Y).

Thus his argument that it is circular reasoning is, in fact, itself circular reasoning.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

From the same thread, after Dylan points out that he sounds paranoid by calling anyone that disagrees with him a "jref'r"

Craig Ranke CIT said:
Dude acts like one and lied like one in this thread.

Jref is eponymous for 9/11 truth skeptic.
Click to expand...
 
AZCat said:
I followed your advice and read slowly, but it did not make any more sense that way.

I think this is not because of me? :confused:
Click to expand...

It took me a few tries, but I eventually managed to dechiper it (I think) by changing a word, deleting another and adding another word and a comma:

It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence, when the evidence that contradicts it proves the deception in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
Poor Malcolm...

malcolm kirkman said:
We live in a sea, just like fish do. We live in a sea of air. The higher up you go, the thinner our sea of air gets. So much so, that at five miles high, it's all gone. How strong a nose do you need to fly through that?
Click to expand...

Indeed. No air at five miles altitude. Don't forget your spacesuits at the top of Everest, people.
 
I don't think the statements below qualify for a Stundie, but the sentiment is so stupid combined with the video they're talking about that it deserves a look. (I also didn't think this merited a separate thread, and we do most of our Loon-Spotting in this thread, so felt it appropriate to post here.)

TheHighwayManq posted a link to a Kucinich meeting where he asks the crowd how many of them aren't satisfied with the 911 investigation to date (I paraphrase). The OP says:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10708

TheHighwayManq
When he asked how many in the crowd shared concerns about 9/11 , almost everyone raised their hand or clapped.
Click to expand...


And then this from a perennial favorite of mine:

Headhunter
Did you hear that crowd? Music to my ears. We're breaking past the 50% mark now, for a LIHOP/MIHOP combined percentage. And when you get that far, going the rest of the way should be relatively easy. Why? Because the "medium" of the message is many to many, not one to many like the MSM, and because the information, in terms of belief with commitment, is a one way street and the information available, is like drinking from a fire hydrant. The movement, as the movement of the truth, is really like MOVING now, BIG TIME! :)
Click to expand...

The only problem with the above - which seems to escape them, are:

a) Per the OP.... THERE IS NO CROWD SHOT! The camera does not move off of Kucinich! How the Hell does he know "almost everyone" responded as he hopes in his wetdreams they are responding?

b) Headhunter - "50%"??? Listen to the audio and tell me how many people clap and/or shout "woo"! (Ed Bless Them For That!) They do try to sound enthusiastic and numerous, but it's not that great a number. Yet, since we don't know (no camera shot) how many people are in the room, you can't say 50%, can you?
On the other hand.... listen to the laughter when Kucinich makes with a joke about stacking his audiences. There are far more voices laughing spontaneously (and not trying to raise the volume intentionally) than there were troofers yapping it up when he asked the question they're so excited about.

In short - they're deluded.

Here's the video for comparison - it's short.....

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom