August Stundie Finals

[KDLarsen]

Had to go for #1, a finer dodge is rarely seen.

 

[Straw Man]

4, 7, 13, and a lot of alcohol, and I'm guessing some therapy.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

1, 3, 5, 14 and 20.

3 FTW, because it encapsulates so much about the conspiratorial mindset, slacktivism, narcissism, idiots on the interweb, the whole shebang.

 

[pakeha]

I limited myself to three:
6, 19 and 20.

 

[fezzic]

Ouch. I have a headache. I am going to bed, maybe things will be better in the morning.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

[/INDENT]

--(7)--
​

Somewhere in Hollywood there is a time machine that, for some reason, is only being used to go back and invent the German language. No wonder film productions always go way over budget.

​

Again, theres pretty wide agreement that the term 'Blitzkreig' as used to refer to the Nazi invasions of Poland and France was indeed popularized by the western media.

If thats a stundie, can I nominate "LHO shot JFK" for a stundie too?​

 

[Horatius]

Again, theres pretty wide agreement that the term 'Blitzkreig' as used to refer to the Nazi invasions of Poland and France was indeed popularized by the western media.

If thats a stundie, can I nominate "LHO shot JFK" for a stundie too?

It's not the use of "Blitzkreig" alone that's the Stundie, it's the unwarranted extension that it "is another one of those Western psychological warfare terminology just like Kristallnacht, Nazi, Sonderkommando, and most likely even Gestapo". The suggestion that all of these terms are nothing more than "Western psychological warfare terminology" is the Stundie.

 

[Oystein]

I know it's a bit pointless, but I voted for more than half of them! Good thing my coffee was fresh and still too hot to drink while I read them. I'll drink it now.

But have to say I think 11 (ownership) and 13 (human fuel), as their are and sans context, strike me as proposition that can make good sense, I don't see the Stundieliciousness there, really...

 

[Natan]

But have to say I think 11 (ownership) and 13 (human fuel), as their are and sans context, strike me as proposition that can make good sense, I don't see the Stundieliciousness there, really...

I noticed you once independently made the same analysis as me as to the energy content of human bodies when looking at your posts. You did it before I had.

 

[Orphia Nay]

5) "Fake victims ACTUALLY suffering" got my vote.

None of the others could compare to the stundipity of that one.

 

[Oystein]

I noticed you once independently made the same analysis as me as to the energy content of human bodies when looking at your posts. You did it before I had.

I have over 8,000 posts - you must have a lot of time to spend!

(Was your result similar?)

 

[uke2se]

I know it's a bit pointless, but I voted for more than half of them! Good thing my coffee was fresh and still too hot to drink while I read them. I'll drink it now.

But have to say I think 11 (ownership) and 13 (human fuel), as their are and sans context, strike me as proposition that can make good sense, I don't see the Stundieliciousness there, really...

Context is important for number 13, I would agree. As I was the one that nominated it, I'll just ask Travis's pardon and go ahead and provide context.

The nominee opined that "bodies can't fuel a fire" and that this was "physics 101". After being shown just how wrong he was, he waffled a bit, then moved the goalposts, claiming that bodies aren't a good source of fuel, basically saying that the Nazis should have selected better sources of fuel for their fires. I thought it was funny, and apparently so did Travis.

 

[Travis]

Context is important for number 13, I would agree. As I was the one that nominated it, I'll just ask Travis's pardon and go ahead and provide context.

The nominee opined that "bodies can't fuel a fire" and that this was "physics 101". After being shown just how wrong he was, he waffled a bit, then moved the goalposts, claiming that bodies aren't a good source of fuel, basically saying that the Nazis should have selected better sources of fuel for their fires. I thought it was funny, and apparently so did Travis.

Yeah, I found it funny because he had apparently forgotten why they were burning the bodies in the first place. Which is why I worded my intro the way that I did.

 

[carlitos]

So, like this?

We have to burn these bodies?

But, bodies aren't good fuel. Let's use something else like wood.

(Burns wood)

Wait, what do we do with the bodies?

Umm.





We need to cook some chicken.

But chicken has moisture so it isn't a good fuel. Let's burn charcoal instead.

(Burns charcoal)

Hey, what if we put the chicken on the charcoal?

Sure, but remember it won't burn, because it's a lousy fuel source. I've never once burned a piece of chicken.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

See, that's where they go wrong. You have to season your dead bodies first, before they become good as fuel. Just stack them in your shed for a few months and they'll do just fine.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

So, like this?

We have to burn these bodies?

But, bodies aren't good fuel. Let's use something else like wood.

(Burns wood)

Wait, what do we do with the bodies?

Umm.





We need to cook some chicken.

But chicken has moisture so it isn't a good fuel. Let's burn charcoal instead.

(Burns charcoal)

Hey, what if we put the chicken on the charcoal?

Sure, but remember it won't burn, because it's a lousy fuel source. I've never once burned a piece of chicken.

You nailed it. If humans and chickens didn't suck as a fuel you would not need to wood or charcoal to burn them. You would light them on fire and they would continue burning until only ash was left. Which they never do.

 

[uke2se]

You nailed it. If humans and chickens didn't suck as a fuel you would not need to wood or charcoal to burn them. You would light them on fire and they would continue burning until only ash was left. Which they never do.

Think you missed the point. Again.

 

[Visual Purple]

A big part of what drew me to 13 was "nitrogen compounds don't burn so well." So that's what explains nitrous tanks in cars and fertilizer bombs.

 

[Oystein]

You nailed it. If humans and chickens didn't suck as a fuel you would not need to wood or charcoal to burn them. You would light them on fire and they would continue burning until only ash was left. Which they never do.

A log of fresh wood isn't easy to ignite, you can't really light it with a match and need some sort of dry cinder to get it to burn. Thar additional fuel would be instrumental to cook off enough water in the moist log to allow it to burn on its own. Once it burns on its own, it is capable to cook off the rest of its own water, and then to dry another moist log. I.e. a sustainable fire.

It's basically the same with corpses: They have a positive energy output, but start out too "wet" to burn. So you need some external fuel to dry the first corps and make it burn. Once you got a few burning, and are skillful, you can pile more on top and won't need more external fuel.

So burning single corpses isn't really feasible without adding fuel till the end. Burning hundreds of corpses however is energetically self-sustaining if you pile them right and look to it that you don't let too much fat drip and run away. The SS men at the KZs had lots of practice stuffing their mufflers efficiently.

 

[Travis]

Boy this is going to be close this month.