Always remember September for stundie noms

Explain to me - or rather to the rest of the folks here - what's so strange about saying that there are points against both alternative explanations, so you're unsure which one you favour.

Perhaps if I repeat my earlier post expressing the same point, which Geni (with whom I was conversing) quoted, you might figure it out better?

Did the investigation simply fail to spot that evidence in 1989, or was there a deliberate policy of overlooking it in order not to implicate Britain's flagship airport in the disaster? Both alternatives seem inherently unlikely; the first because the evidence really is absolutely in-your-face, and the second because, well, it's a conspiracy theory. However, one or other must have happened.
Click to expand...


Get it now?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jargon buster said:
So explain exactly what you mean, did they miss it or did they see it and ignore it, they cant do both.
Unless you are suggessting they missed it and ignored it. ;)
Click to expand...




How about "Both possibilities are equally unlikely"?

Which would suggest that one or the other actually isn't as unlikely as people think.
 
EventHorizon said:
:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Did you get that? The copy is not a copy. This is absurd on a level I can't describe. I'd love to see Robert in school. "But teacher, I didn't copy off my neighbor's paper. Sure the answers are exactly the same but look! The handwriting is different!"
Click to expand...

I thinks comes from computer age thinking, where a copy is an exact digital duplicate of the original. There was another nom a while back where they complained that they couldn't have copied the legend of Gilgamesh to write the Genesis, since there weren't any computers to do it with.
 
I had to reread it to make sure that I understood it. It is perhaps a less than perfectly clear statement. But it does make sense to me. It is not fit for nomination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Klimax said:
Suprised it's missing couple of marks of CWoo.. (like almost mandatory $)
Looks like good decision to stay away from that subforum...
Click to expand...

I wonder into what device I would have typed "microsoft.com" in 1981. Maybe the command line of the apple 2?
 
Actually, thanks for that. It was so subtle it went over my head until your comment caused me to look at it again. :D

Rolfe.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, I did read it, teach, But to understand it one would have to turn one's brain into a pretzel.
Click to expand...

Good grief, I'm surprised half the people on the internet didn't just drop dead of blood poisoning due to the lethal amount of irony in that post.

Robert Prey, the random stundie generator.
 
Mudcat said:
Good grief, I'm surprised half the people on the internet didn't just drop dead of blood poisoning due to the lethal amount of irony in that post.

Robert Prey, the random stundie generator.
Click to expand...

Nothing random about it, the Stundies are as predictable as his refrain of "Baloney".
 
NutCracker said:
I can't escape the impression that some of you aren't too well versed in Microsoft''s past track records of poor products, its poor adherence to software engineering principles and its history of anti-competitive behaviour.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with anything in this thread?
Nothing. Moved to the correct thread. Back on topic, me hearties.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prediction. If that post makes the final, it will only get half the votes it should get, because half the people reading it won't get it. Unless it's explained, and if it's explained too explicitly, it isn't funny any more.

Rolfe.
 
Horatius said:
http://reality-bytes.hubpages.com/hub/Freeman-On-The-Land-Success-Story-Has-Any-FOTL-Been-Succesful

The recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), decided that corporations are people. Using this logic it is safe to say that if corporations are people, people are corporations. It may take awhile for the law to catch up with current events, in time it will!

Yes, FoTL theory is now based on the undistributed middle fallacy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this leaves Soylent Green...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom