July 2007 Stundie Nominations

[William Rea]

Actually, even you've got it the wrong way round, he was trying to describe not a vacuum, but the absence of a vacuum...snip...

Rolfe, I have no way of interpreting the tone of your post but it comes over as slightly hostile in that first sentence. I was speculating and now you're speculating about my speculation, for what purpose I don't understand.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I have no way of interpreting the tone of your post but it comes over as slightly hostile in that first sentence. I was speculating and now you're speculating about my speculation, for what purpose I don't understand.

Purpose being to try to avoid this string of misunderstandings getting any deeper, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. Malcolm wanted the hole in the bag to "let gravity IN". What a hole would actually do (in the appropriate circumstances) would be to let the vacuum OUT. Although he was about as wrong as it's possible to get, his position was consistently that in the PRESENCE of a vacuum, gravity was ABSENT. When he said "gravity" was present, he on no occasion meant "a vacuum" was present. He meant "no vacuum" was present.

Don't make it any more complicated than it is.

Rolfe.

 

[William Rea]

Do you actually possess a sense of humour? I am curious as to why you would take such offence when blindly stupidity is pointed out.

Do you feel that to laugh as such stupidity is a failing, to let the side down perhaps?

Let's face it sog, you don't give a fig either way so why ask?

 

[William Rea]

Purpose being to try to avoid this string of misunderstandings getting any deeper, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. Malcolm wanted the hole in the bag to "let gravity IN". What a hole would actually do (in the appropriate circumstances) would be to let the vacuum OUT. Although he was about as wrong as it's possible to get, his position was consistently that in the PRESENCE of a vacuum, gravity was ABSENT. When he said "gravity" was present, he on no occasion meant "a vacuum" was present. He meant "no vacuum" was present.

Don't make it any more complicated than it is.

Rolfe.

No problem Rolfe I accept what you say. What I couldn't understand is why you seemed to adopt a hostile tone when speculating about my speculation? I didn't see that I gave you any reason to do that?

 

[Alareth]

William, this thread is about what people SAY, not what they think they meant to say. Stop speculating about the intent and stick to the letter.

William has proven on a continual basis that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference between the two concepts.

 

[Rolfe]

No problem Rolfe I accept what you say. What I couldn't understand is why you seemed to adopt a hostile tone when speculating about my speculation? I didn't see that I gave you any reason to do that?

I post with a tone??

Come and have a chat to some homoeopaths of my acquaintance, and you'll see who's got a tone!

Seriously, life's too short to take offence at every imagined slight.

Rolfe.

PS. Clarification. Even you've got it the wrong way round. (Which I assume is the "tone".) Translation: Malcolm the always-wrong got this about as wrong as it's possible for an adult human being to get it. Even you, who so far have seemed relatively rational, appear to have got the situation reversed.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let's face it sog, you don't give a fig either way so why ask?

Maybe I like you William and want to get to know you, maybe become your buddy.

Or maybe I cannot understand why you feel so strongly about this section on this sub forum that you would wish to spend so much of your time on it.

See it is simple, if you do not like the Stundies, where stupidity is pointed out, then simply do not read them. Ignore it, go else where.

Why object and defend stupidity? Why not mock it? If you want, as a group to be taken seriously then it should be down to you and your group to point out the errors of this movement and correct them, not me or anybody else. If you are unprepared to do this but prefer simply to go along with everything, no matter how inane, any twoofers says, and then this is your problem. The truth,William, does not come in the form of wild speculation, it comes with cold logic, facts and evidence and not the wild fantasies that are highlighted in this thread.

I, like you said couldn't give rats, but hey that does not mean I should stop laughing. I laugh at the utter desperation of this movement and the complete lack of understanding of those that follow it.

But then again William it is not me that is accusing perfectly innocent people of mass murder

 

[chipmunk stew]

No problem Rolfe I accept what you say. What I couldn't understand is why you seemed to adopt a hostile tone when speculating about my speculation? I didn't see that I gave you any reason to do that?

Maybe you oughtn't speculate about his speculating about your speculation?

Just sayin...

 

[William Rea]

I post with a tone?? ...snip...

I don't know Rolfe. I asked you to clarify so that I didn't make the mistake of believing a tone was there when it might not be. You may have noticed that I have enough fans on here without adding more to the ranks.

 

[William Rea]

Maybe I like you William and want to get to know you, maybe become your buddy.

Unlikely.

Or maybe I cannot understand why you feel so strongly about this section on this sub forum that you would wish to spend so much of your time on it.

See it is simple, if you do not like the Stundies, where stupidity is pointed out, then simply do not read them. Ignore it, go else where.

Why object and defend stupidity? Why not mock it? If you want, as a group to be taken seriously then it should be down to you and your group to point out the errors of this movement and correct them, not me or anybody else. If you are unprepared to do this but prefer simply to go along with everything, no matter how inane, any twoofers says, and then this is your problem. The truth,William, does not come in the form of wild speculation, it comes with cold logic, facts and evidence and not the wild fantasies that are highlighted in this thread.

I, like you said couldn't give rats, but hey that does not mean I should stop laughing. I laugh at the utter desperation of this movement and the complete lack of understanding of those that follow it.

But then again William it is not me that is accusing perfectly innocent people of mass murder

I can't discuss that, see my signature.

 

[8den]

Maybe you oughtn't speculate about his speculating about your speculation?

Just sayin...

Hey look the guy is just speculating about a hypothesis is all, jesus Mikey!


(With thanks to the Coen Brothers)

 

[stateofgrace]

Unlikely.



I can't discuss that, see my signature.

I would actually categorise it as extremely unlikely William, but hey at least you finished with a smile .

 

[beachnut]

Look at my signature. What is that? Please look at my neat sig. William, that is not good enough to be nominated, you will not win.

 

[Mobyseven]

I can't discuss that, see my signature.

William, you more than anyone know that you weren't suspended for discussing Teh Stundies. You were suspended for spamming the forum.

Though I'd prefer to imagine that you're actually saying that you can't discuss Ringo Starr or his family.

 

[Belz...]

This post has been written under JREF Forum Orthodoxy Police restrictions.

Just be thankful you're not on the LC forum, saying things that don't agree with the mods.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What a hole would actually do (in the appropriate circumstances) would be to let the vacuum OUT.

Errr... did you really mean to say that?

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

Errr... did you really mean to say that?

Dave

Well it was late. Quarter to midnight my time. Need my beauty sleep. Could have phrased it better.

OK, "let the air in and so release the vacuum"? "Let the air in and so prevent a vacuum from forming"? Whatever he was saying, he wasn't equating gravity and vacuum. He was consistently equating "gravity" with "the absence of a vacuum".

Actually, his thought processes got a bit clearer later on, when in answer to the question "what are viable sources of gravity?" he replied "air pressure". So, he thought you needed a BIG hole in the bag to let the air pressure in (which might even have been sort of right if the bags hadn't been made of polythene, which had already been explicitly explained to him), but he was equating the action of atmospheric pressure with gravity.

I suspect he thought (probably still thinks for all the retraction he's shown) that gravity is nothing but atmospheric pressure pushing us all down. However, we never got that far, because he himself introduced the staggering idea that of course he had to be right because TV tubes are evacuated, and that must be to remove the gravity so that the electrons are able to cross to the other side.

I'm still waiting for someone to do something with this in the "Cartoon a Conspiracy Theory" thread, which hasn't had anything really amusing posted for days.

Rolfe.

 

[Horatius]

I'm still waiting for someone to do something with this in the "Cartoon a Conspiracy Theory" thread, which hasn't had anything really amusing posted for days.

Rolfe.

Well, it's hard to parody something that's already that amazingly ridiculous.


That, and I haven't figured out how to draw the inside of a TV tube, or why the NWO Kitty would be inside one.....

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose - just encapsulate the inherent ridiculousness? Succinctly?

Rolfe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suppose - just encapsulate the inherent ridiculousness? Succinctly?

But Malcolm does that so well himself.

Dave