This is not the April Stundie nomination thread

carlitos said:
Numerology is awesome. Here's some math about an unrelated subject (or 3). Now, "minus the zeros" and a sinister plan is revealed.

Wait - I just googled "DAME OF MATLA" (sic)- I see Phyllis Schlafly but no Shakira. Hmm. I bet Shakira could shake the evil right out of those little triangles.
Click to expand...

First two hits I got were the wiki for "Dame of Malta"...then the isht got weird...vaticanassassins.org, GLP, et al....
 
Sigh... Another one that isn't official due to being a conversation but has to be shared for the stundieliciousness...

A guy told me that I should rub my beard in my son's face to irritate him so he learns to hate facial hair & thus... won't turn out gay...

Because gay dudes don't shave I guess... or he's not familiar with the term "bear".
 
gabeygoat said:
" BUT MINUS THE ZEROS AND YOU HAVE 666"

haha, holy wow, that's some interesting numerology.
Click to expand...

That reminds me....

trutherlogic.jpg


Same exact logic....:D
 
Redtail said:
Sigh... Another one that isn't official due to being a conversation but has to be shared for the stundieliciousness...

A guy told me that I should rub my beard in my son's face to irritate him so he learns to hate facial hair & thus... won't turn out gay...
Click to expand...

uuhhh,, I think that will more likely result in him hating you.
 
Redtail said:
Sigh... Another one that isn't official due to being a conversation but has to be shared for the stundieliciousness...

A guy told me that I should rub my beard in my son's face to irritate him so he learns to hate facial hair & thus... won't turn out gay...

Because gay dudes don't shave I guess... or he's not familiar with the term "bear".
Click to expand...

I live in Wooiville, so if I was to write down everything I hear around me that was Stundie-material I would need a car to carry all the paper.... so I think I'll pass, thanks.
 
Apparently discarding and believeing are so easy to mistake...
Monza said:
Robert,

Per your rules, here is one question for you. Which of the following accounts is incorrect and should be rejected?

A) Crenshaw's statements

Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."


B) McClellan's approved drawing

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=826&pictureid=5905[/qimg]
Click to expand...



Robert Prey said:
Easy question, already answered. All of the above.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
...The WTC didn't collapse anyway. What we witnessed on the videos
is a wave of energy passing through the buildings. After the wave of
energy destroyed the buildings, most of the remains fell to the ground
under gravity. It wasn't a very forcible or fast explosion, either.

It was a foaming. The WTC was turned into metallic foam, and I have
this material in my possession.
Click to expand...

I think Mark had the right idea.

MarkLindeman said:
(Backs slowly away.)
Click to expand...
 
Can I get metallic foam in my latte or is that the title for Metallica's new album?

:D
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8229778#post8229778


They didn't find any toilets, bro. That's amazing. There's nothing
about a building collapse that dustifies the toilets so thoroughly
that you can't find any after the collapse. Therefore, it wasn't
a collapse.

However, if you include the possibility of an energy weapon,
things make much more sense. A wave of energy passing
through the building could possibly destroy the toilets in a way
that a collapse could not have.
Click to expand...


Argumentum ad Tolietum
 
Clayton Moore said:
Loss Leader said:
The ironic thing is that Hussein's main complaint against Kuwait turned out to be right. He accused them of slant-drilling into Iraqi oil deposits, they really were and the world really didn't care. Obviously, that doesn't justify his all-out invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

Let's see, Hussein started a war on a neighbor that was stealing his resources likely with US technology and likely with US knowledge and blessing?

Years later the US started a war with Iraq based on WMD lies and lying that Iraq and Hussein were involved with 9/11. So to you that does justify the all-out invasion, and poorly planned to prolong it to boot, and occupation of a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something here. My emphasis added.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom