June 2007 Stundie Nominations

uk_dave said:
It's a fascinating study in the truth behind the 'truth'.

The kid thinks of himself as a good christian, but his desires make him loathe himself. He has an obsession with porn, but instead of taking responsibility for this himself, he seeks to blame some mysterious NWO or satanic cult for ensnaring him.

'Truthers' whine when we point out that a belief in the NWO/Illuminati/reptoids being behind 911 is a psychological condition manifesting itself as a desire to see an enemy they can blame for everything they hate about themselves and their lives, as opposed to a real enemy you can see on your tv screens but which has nothing to do with how bad they might be feeling about themselves at any given time.

And here we have this LCF poster who perfectly illustrates that mentality.
Click to expand...

So, at the end of that series of personal attacks analysis of the posters personality does it qualify as a Stundie?
 
William Rea said:
What exactly are you nominating HeyLeroy?
Click to expand...

I think he is nominating the OPs assertion that "aluminium & plastic vs concrete and steel" is a "no contest" when the OP has not considered the energies involved nor does he seem to give any due consideration to the problem before dismissing it out-of-hand.

Granted, it is not the best of Teh Stundies this month has to offer, but it is certainly valid, nonetheless.
 
William Rea said:
So, at the end of that series of personal attacks analysis of the posters personality does it qualify as a Stundie?
Click to expand...

My personal opinion: No.

Though it was kinda funny that he blamed his porn obsession on the NWO.
 
gumboot said:
I would think spelling errors (including typos) should only qualify if they occur in a post in which the poster is reprimanding or otherwise criticising another posting for making a spelling error or typo.

For example:

Ha ha, it's "horse", nor "hrose". Man how can you axpect anyone to beleive your arguments when you can't even spell proply?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hence, the bucket-loads of irony comment.
 
qarnos said:
My personal opinion: No.

Though it was kinda funny that he blamed his porn obsession on the NWO.
Click to expand...

I personally find that nomination a little bit too disturbing. While it doesn't break any of the rules, it isn't really funny...to me it just paints the picture of a very disturbed kid.
 
Newcomer Swing Dangler, among the ranks of those attacking Val McClatchey over her Flight 93 photograph, demonstrates his rejection of science:

Swing Dangler said:
Great. The physics match the photo. That does nothing to prove the validity of the photo. Unless you have the original digital file, the analysis is inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Yes, "nothing" to prove the validity.

Pity the competition is so fierce this month.
 
Rmackey, a long time poster at JREF ignores facts, gets it wrong, or worse lies?
Val is not profiting by this venture, but donates all money sent to Heroic Choices, a charity organization honoring Mr. Todd Beamer, a victim of Flight 93
Click to expand...

Before her trouble with the AP, Mrs. McClatchey had licensed the use of her photo to various news organizations, including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Newsweek and ABC. She generally charged $250 to $350 for one-time use of the picture, admitting she did not know how much freelance photographers commanded.

She is seeking $150,000 in damages, contending the AP was guilty of "willful infringement" of the copyright.

Aside from marketing the photo to news companies, Mrs. McClatchey sold personal copies. She charged $20 for each, $18 of which went to the Todd Beamer Foundation. Mr. Beamer was a passenger on Flight 93. The rest of the money from personal sales went for paper and printing costs, her lawyers said.Source:Pittsburg GazettePittsburg-Post Gazette

Attention Physics Professors there has been a change in the world of math. 20-18=20
I repeat, 20-18=20

Rmackey, long time poster, confuses fields of science:
Great. The physics match the photo. That does nothing to prove the validity of the photo. Unless you have the original digital file, the analysis is inconsequential.
Yes, "nothing" to prove the validity.
Pity the competition is so fierce this month.
Click to expand...

So measuring a smoke plume on a still photo verifies the authenticity of a digital file stored on a multiple digital storage devices in the forms of 1's and 0's.
Paper and ink now equals 1's and 0's in the field of physics.
Yes, I must admit a rejection of science... when used incorrectly.

I do agree, the competition is fierce this month.
 
Sorry, Swing, your first attempt was better. Please keep these unworthy efforts in their original threads.

I'll have a comprehensive answer to you shortly. I've been cracking up over those phone calls you call "evidence..." Stay tuned. :D
 
Swing, please keep in depth discussion of the original topic in the original thread. If you have an issue with the nomination, please briefly state what that problem is, as I was unclear as to what grounds you were disputing the nomination on.

Also:

Swing Dangler said:
Attention Physics Professors there has been a change in the world of math. 20-18=20
I repeat, 20-18=20
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you meant "20-18=0" in that paragraph? As in, "Well, if she isn't profiting off the photos, and she sells them for $20 but only gives $18 to the charity, where has the other $2 gone?"

The answer lies in your post - the $2 goes towards expenses such as paper and other printing costs.

ETA - And mailing costs, thanks Gravy.
 
Can't Swing be nominated for leaping on the math, bolding the portion about the addtional charges, and then getting the summary totally incorrect?

I'd sure consider it, but I've already nominated this month's fer shure winner.... :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:
 
William Rea said:
What exactly are you nominating HeyLeroy?
Click to expand...
As an engineer I can help those who told me they make all their decisions based on opinions. Stand by for facts and evidence.

The floor is 4 inches thick, not feet thick, that is worthy, but he picked the highlight section, you can use the inches to feet as stundie background, making the stundie nomination, even stundier.

This is what he is nominating, and the post gives the back ground. Simple stuff for some engineers and those with logical and rational thinking skills.
Aluminum and plastic vs. Concrete and steel.

No contest.
Click to expand...

The nominated statement implies aluminum and plastic, the jet doing 470 to 590 mph, can not destroy concrete and steel. Bingo, a stundie nomination with extra credit. An energy challenged 9/11 truth person, makes a big mistake. Stundied!

Did that help? Facts and evidence are tough for some to understand, if you need help just speak up. There are a lot of engineers and expert researchers around here to help you with facts and evidence.
 
Doug Plumb, who has some role in running Architects & Engineers for truth, is going to give Malcolm Kirkman a run for his money if he sticks around. It will be interesting to see if he ever gets anything right. Here are a couple of mind-numbing gems from one post.

Doug Plumb said:
Alex Jones is not a conspiracy theorist either. He also works from fact. Some people think he aggagerates the interpretation of fact but this does not mean he is a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

For 9/11 info I go to Jim Hoffman or Judy Wood as the best sources.
Click to expand...
 
Rick Siegel is back with a...um...eh...explanation.

911eyewitness said:
To some of the rest whom I have not responded: I don't apologize for being hard to read. It is a process to cull value. If one cannot take the time to figure what I have to say then I am already gone and you are a babbling stone on the rivers edge. Hardly worth attention. I don’t need or want a gaggle of ducks.
Click to expand...
 
I nominate Wizentub for this amazing piece of logical deduction:

Wizentub said:
I would like to start a thread,
Johhny Five, you appear to be a plant.
Insurance underwriter, police studies and enough time to post more than 2000 times on this forum in less than a year.
Click to expand...

Apparently he finds my posting history suspicious... highly suspicious, and comes to the common sense conclusion that I am a paid agent of some kind.
 
Doug Plumb believes the US government is behaving x-tra badly. From the "No, I shan't be doing that department":
For the crushing of testicles and sexual torure of young children:

search "torture_yoo_being_asked_justify_crushing_children s_testicls.htm"
Click to expand...
 
So how does one go about getting a job as an Infant Testicle Crusher? I'm looking for work right now and I never see these kinds of jobs advertised in the paper. I know a few snotty ten-year-olds who could do with a bit of goolie mashing.

Maybe primary education is not my field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom