September is a good time for Stundie nominations

[Travis]

This is it. They won't be missed. Nominate the best of the pissed!

I have no idea what that means.

Guidelines for what is a good Stundie nominee:

1) Posts must be funny.

2) Posts must exhibit ignorance, faulty logic or stupendous arrogance mixed with an ironic mistake.

3) No spelling errors, typos, grammar issues or math mix-ups unless they are deliciously ironic.

4) Posts should not just be something you disagree with.

5) All nominated posts must have some sort of link or screenshot to prove the reality of the post and its source.

6) Keep the introductions short and sweet as Stundies should not need too much background.

7) Nominated posts should be cut down to the nominated part which should be concise and stand on its own.

8) This is not the place for ad hominems so a post should be funny independent of knowing who it is that said it.

9) Pictures are not generally allowed on their own but descriptions of pictures, provided they meet all other previously stated requirements, are allowed.

10) Videos are not allowed on their own but transcripts of videos, provided they meet all other previously stated requirements, are allowed even if you personally did the transcribing.

11) Bonus points for nominations that mention monkey related conspiracies.

12) Extra bonus points if monkey related conspiracies involve lemurs.

 

[Bishop]

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak

So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

 

[grmcdorman]

Ok, that's it. Right out of the gate, game over, TKO.

 

[Mark F]

I love that quote on so many levels I just can't even describe,...

 

[BazBear]

Ok, that's it. Right out of the gate, game over, TKO.

That one might not even need the T before KO!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, that was the shortest nomination thread of all time.

 

[grmcdorman]

What'cha mean, shortest? It took a whole six hours.

 

[Travis]

Now, now. Don't be hasty. There will surely be loads more. September is always a good month for stundies because all the Truthers come out of their basements.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Now, now. Don't be hasty. There will surely be loads more. September is always a good month for stundies because all the Truthers come out of their basements.

Yeah, but the problem is, after 12 years, all they've got is the same old stale recycled stupid. There hasn't been anything truly innovative in the world of Truther stupidity for years. Even their rocket-powered goalposts are simply retreading the same old path across the field.

 

[kookbreaker]

Not a Stundie, but a back-and-forth commentary between me and a Facebook friend.

Her: There are these folks who were claiming all kinds of nonsense about 9/11. It was really odd stuff. Didn't make any sense.
Me: Google the word 'Stundie' sometime.
(some minutes go by)
Her: I don't want to live anymore.

 

[Bishop]

Just helping out someone who posted this in the old thread:

Clueless forum again,
Apparently it is statistically impossible to ever launch a rocket
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1070&start=585

One thing which troubles me about all this space technology is the exponential risk created by the extreme complexity of the fabrication and launch process. Reading about the solid fuel production process for the Ariane 5 rocket I am shocked by the number of steps involved in its creation, each one multiplying the mission failure risk. There are dozens if not hundreds of steps to produce the fuel. If any one step goes wrong, if the proper thickness or homogeneity of the solid fuel is not achieved, then that one, single, failed step will jeopardize the success of the entire mission. If we include every component of the creation from scratch to launch of a rocket, then we could be considering tens of thousands of steps, the success of the mission depending on the proper completion of each one - which begs the question: at what point does it become statistically impossible for a rocket launch to be successful?

I guess they don't have quality control in his mom's basement?

 

[threadworm]

Just helping out someone who posted this in the old thread:

And to continue the fine tradition of Clueless always having something to Stundie, we have Simonshack's expert dismissal of all those pesky technical sums that add up and make sense in favour of "It kind of looks funny to me":

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632&start=420#p2387010

Oh well, I guess that their numbers are 'right' and that, most likely, this part of the ongoing Space Scam would be well covered from a strictly technical perspective. I should probably (and ideally, all of us non-rocket scientists) stick to exposing the ridiculous imagery of these rocket launches which, technically speaking, are way below any acceptable / believable standard. The imagery seems to be the weakest point of the Grand Space Hoax - so let us (mere observers) keep pointing out this utterly laughable visual data.

I'm sorry but, at this point, NO technical 'evidence' of the feasibility of launching rockets in space - as advertised by NASA and ESA - can possibly convince me that their proposed rocket launches - and subsequent space explorations - are in any manner real / truthful / legit / authentic. Any number of people is of course free to believe that NASA and ESA do what they say they do - but just count me out of that number.

Yeah I'd stick to looking at the pictures Simon.

 

[jaydeehess]

feasibility of launching rockets in space .

Most rocket launches I have seen took place on Earth.

 

[Metullus]

Most rocket launches I have seen took place on Earth.

Those are just the ones we know about...

 

[jaydeehess]

Those are just the ones we know about...

The pie-man must have better sources.

 

[Garrison]

Most rocket launches I have seen took place on Earth.

And that's the thing; with a little time effort and energy Simon could go see a rocket launch for himself but I suppose that would be fake as well...

 

[fromdownunder]

And that's the thing; with a little time effort and energy Simon could go see a rocket launch for himself but I suppose that would be fake as well...

What? From his basement?

Norm

 

[jaydeehess]

And that's the thing; with a little time effort and energy Simon could go see a rocket launch for himself but I suppose that would be fake as well...

Being an internet warrior does not pay well enough to include traveling to view launches.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Those are just the ones we know about...

...which brings up another question: if it's impossible to launch a rocket, then how are all those interstellar UFOs getting here? Time travel? Wormholes? My Great-aunt Mary's old Chevrolet?

 

[Horatius]

And that's the thing; with a little time effort and energy Simon could go see a rocket launch for himself but I suppose that would be fake as well...

Well, of course. After it's out of his sight, it's purely a matter of trust that it "reaches space" and "goes into orbit".

Nothing short of sending him to the Moon personally will ever convince him. Of course, in his case, I think we can skimp on the "Safely returning him to the Earth" part.

...which brings up another question: if it's impossible to launch a rocket, then how are all those interstellar UFOs getting here? Time travel? Wormholes? My Great-aunt Mary's old Chevrolet?

Not Rockets, obviously. Nazi anti-gravity, perhaps?