March Stundie Nominations

McHrozni said:
I'm just trying to point out what I said isn't as wrong as Rolfe is trying to make it.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Well then you probably won't win a Stundie (this time, mwahahah!). But your stance was silly and you've been nominated. These things happen.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Well then you probably won't win a Stundie (this time, mwahahah!). But your stance was silly and you've been nominated. These things happen.
Click to expand...

I still disagree that the stance is silly, but yeah, I guess I'll survive :)

Can I at least ask for the stundie nomination to be posted in it's proper context once the finals begin? Namely that we're talking outside of the context of criminal law?

McHrozni
 
This is probably the most insane 'argument' I have ever seen on the internet.

On the 'Holocaust a hoax?' thread in the 'political manipulation/cover ups...' section of the Icke forum (I can't post links) a moron of truly breathtaking proportions, a native German speaker called 'tinyint' has advanced a truly bizarre 'argument' in relation to Himmler's infamous Posen speech.

In a novel twist on the 'ausrotten means uproot not exterminate' argument, he claims that Himmler means uproot because...entwurzeln means uproot.

Yes words fail for your stupidity, or shall I call it null education?

to uproot=entwurzeln
or
entwurzeln=to uproot

In no way you can construct from that some murderous intend. LOL!
You are digging your hole deeper and deeper.

I can uproot a tree or a plant, but it certainly has never been applied to some murdering. That is spindoctoring, and just shows again that it must be translation or "reconstruction" mistake. The hoaxers simply didn't know german well enough. How inconvenient.

You are really impressively uneducated, or you just have enormous chutzpah.
Either way, this is ridiculous to even argue with a german speaker about the meaning of a german word... to uproot=entwurzeln, period and lol again.
Click to expand...

(page 169 of thread. More insanity from page 172.

That's right. Himmler meant uproot not exterminate when he said ausrottung because entwurzeln means uproot.

You didn't read that wrong, that is the argument.

Check out the dictionary screen grab he uses in first attempt to 'prove' ausrotten means 'uproot' on page 160 (can't post image as can't post URLs yet).
It's well worth a look in itself for insanity value.

I'm not sure if this is so much a stundie as psychosis, but it's so utterly bizarre I thought I'd share.

The thread generally has some of the most nuts stuff I have ever seen.
 
McHrozni said:
I still disagree that the stance is silly, but yeah, I guess I'll survive :)

Can I at least ask for the stundie nomination to be posted in it's proper context once the finals begin? Namely that we're talking outside of the context of criminal law?
Click to expand...


Hah, you should be so lucky as to make the finals, with this month's collection of loopiness for competition!

I don't think it matters because it's a preposterous thing to say in any context. It's simply ridiculous to assert that "the minimum you have to do" if you want to question the guilt of any accused person, is to produce another credible suspect - whether or not the law is involved.

However, it's by no means a given that we were talking outside the context of criminal law either. I'd draw your attention to the very first sentence of the OP of the thread in question.

Tony Gauci's questionable identification of Abdelbaset al Megrahi as the person who purchased the assortment of clothes that were later found scorched and blast-damaged in the Scottish countryside was a major part of Megrahi's grounds for appeal
Click to expand...
We were discussing the specific aspect of this court case which was named by the relevant legal body as giving rise to the possibility that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice, and this was made clear right from the start of the OP. McHronzi's declaration that "we aren't in a law trial", but on an internet forum, was made after his Stundie nomination, quite a lot further down the thread.

Nevertheless, why do we need to produce another suspect? If the evidence sucks, then it sucks.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
dogsmilk said:
This is probably the most insane 'argument' I have ever seen on the internet.

On the 'Holocaust a hoax?' thread in the 'political manipulation/cover ups...' section of the Icke forum (I can't post links) a moron of truly breathtaking proportions, a native German speaker called 'tinyint' has advanced a truly bizarre 'argument' in relation to Himmler's infamous Posen speech.

In a novel twist on the 'ausrotten means uproot not exterminate' argument, he claims that Himmler means uproot because...entwurzeln means uproot.



(page 169 of thread. More insanity from page 172.

That's right. Himmler meant uproot not exterminate when he said ausrottung because entwurzeln means uproot.

You didn't read that wrong, that is the argument.

Check out the dictionary screen grab he uses in first attempt to 'prove' ausrotten means 'uproot' on page 160 (can't post image as can't post URLs yet).
It's well worth a look in itself for insanity value.

I'm not sure if this is so much a stundie as psychosis, but it's so utterly bizarre I thought I'd share.

The thread generally has some of the most nuts stuff I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Marvellous. Argument by thesaurus.
 
Rolfe said:
Hah, you should be so lucky as to make the finals, with this month's collection of loopiness for competition!

I don't think it matters because it's a preposterous thing to say in any context. It's simply ridiculous to assert that "the minimum you have to do" if you want to question the guilt of any accused person, is to produce another credible suspect - whether or not the law is involved.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily a credible suspect, but you do need to demonstrate that someone else could have done it. Granted, this is obvious in a vast majority of cases and not pursued. In some cases, however, it is extremely important if it was at all possible for anyone else to have done the deed. I posted you one hypothetical example that you ignored:

Two astronauts in a spacecraft in orbit around the Moon. One is murdered, accident and suicide are ruled out. The nearest human is 250,000 miles away on Earth. According to you, asking who else could be is ridiculous.

McHrozni
 
carlitos said:
Really?

I'm not willing to suffer through a lady gaga video. It's just not worth it. But I'm guessing that any "dice hanging in the car" are a set of 2 dice? If those 2 dice add up to 13, I will acquiesce and admit it's a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

For consideration:
 

Attachments

  • gagadice.jpg
    gagadice.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 6
McHrozni said:
Not necessarily a credible suspect, but you do need to demonstrate that someone else could have done it. Granted, this is obvious in a vast majority of cases and not pursued. In some cases, however, it is extremely important if it was at all possible for anyone else to have done the deed. I posted you one hypothetical example that you ignored:

Two astronauts in a spacecraft in orbit around the Moon. One is murdered, accident and suicide are ruled out. The nearest human is 250,000 miles away on Earth. According to you, asking who else could be is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


:hb:

Have you any idea how ridiculous that comparison is? We're not talking about a spaceship, we're talking about the surface of the Earth, with all it's 6 billion people on board.

If you think you can make a case that only one single individual of all these 6 billion could possibly have been responsible for this crime, you're free to do so. So far, I've seen no attempt. Merely the assertion that before I can doubt this person's guilt, I have to produce compelling evidence against someone else.

This is ridiculous, and becoming more Stundilicious by the minute.

Rolfe.
 
I wish to nominate Mate1 at youtube, for the comments made here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8

A little bit of background:
It posted a typical set of claims, including the one that the towers were a nightmare of asbestos and too expensive to safely renovate, and I challenged it. It then replied with:
Each lie? You only covered 1 but this is not a lie, i can see your tactics, trying to debunk 1 and makeing it look all is wrong but you didnt debunk even 1, towers was old and needed very expensive renovations.But you keep beliving stuff like they finded passport on the ground after plane hitted it ;D and good luck for your -1 buddies too.
Click to expand...

I asked it to show some evidence, and it replied in a PM with this article:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/20-nov-2005b.html
and said this was the best it had. Needless to say, the article doesn't provide any grounds for it's claims, it just makes an assertion that "everyone knows the Port Authority was going to demolish the towers, but they didn't get the permission". When I asked it about that, it replied with the stundie:

Well i wasnt talking anything about Port Authority wanting to destroy those buildings, you hear stuff in your head? I know that this article is talking about it but i was talking about something else.
Click to expand...

Any suggestions as how to best reply to it? :D

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
What do THEY know!?!?!

In a recent thread on PP, about the recent article naming asteroid impact as the culprit for killing the dinos, that starts off with this gem...

clint giles said:
scientist's today who cannot even come up with legitamate answers about what happend on 911,with the towers and the plane crashes in pennsylvania or the pentagon are now going to decide what happend milions of years ago?
huh.gif


something does not seem right.
Click to expand...

We get this as the first response...

2010 said:
scientists don't know anything. They are wrong on pretty much everything they say. + most of the time they are NWO shills.

Millions of years ago? what a joke. Read the bible.
Click to expand...

And it just gets crazier from there!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162390.0;topicseen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom