June 2007 Stundie Nominations

William Rea takes these "awards" a little too seriously:
William Rea said:
I dispute this nomination [the one where LTW compares themselves to Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, etc.] on the grounds that the relevance of these historical figures is subjective and that history has yet to judge any of the important figures in the 911 debate to the same extent.
Click to expand...
 
chipmunk stew said:
William Rea takes these "awards" a little too seriously:

William Rea said:
I dispute this nomination [the one where LTW compares themselves to Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, etc.] on the grounds that the relevance of these historical figures is subjective and that history has yet to judge any of the important figures in the 911 debate to the same extent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Does he even know how much like Bush he sounds? Once again, the truthers are the people they hate...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Does he even know how much like Bush he sounds? Once again, the truthers are the people they hate...
Click to expand...

This is what makes me smile, you all protest that you don't want to talk about me and yet here in the JUNE nominations you are posting about me and my posts regarding May's Finals (in no particular context other than to make a personal attack I'll add).

I think you all protest too much.
 
I nominate

Avery: "You've got to get your facts straight if you're going to make accusations like this."- To Killtown in their no-plane debate.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I nominate

Avery: "You've got to get your facts straight if you're going to make accusations like this."- To Killtown in their no-plane debate.
Click to expand...

In this video about 8 seconds in.

ETA:

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?
 
Last edited:
A little goldmine of Stundies.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10327

Thread : Ways to predict the next big attack @ LCF.

LUCUS.
If you see a moving company outside of the Rockefeller house at 4AM in NYC, you can rest assured there is something going to happen to NYC.
Click to expand...
8bitagent.
I say watch the dates. Major terror attacks post 9/11 usually happen when there is an "11" or "7" in the date.
Click to expand...
sleepy2k16
I heard the number 11 is the number for Global Government and NWO

I had a dream it would be in august.
Click to expand...
femafuncamp
y cant we just spy on EVERYONE *elite* but then agian they would think a way around it
Click to expand...
8bitagent
11 is definately a fave, along with 77, and 33.

Remember, 9/11 was:

11 years after Bush Sr's NWO debut speech to the world
done on the 11th of september
ON the towers, created by Rockefeller in the shape of an 11
with Flight 11
11(0) stories tall each
11 years before 2012
2012 is the year when the 1776 feet tall freedom obelisk rises in its place

Whats the two big occult numbers? 11 and 77. what are the flights? 11 and 77
What are the big attacks since? 3/11, 7/7, 7/11, 4/11, 10/7, etc
Click to expand...

Who need security services and counter terrorist organisations? Just watch the dates, spy on anybody who may be vaguely important and if any doubt rely on your dreams to wade off terrorist’s intent on death and destruction.
 
qarnos said:
In this video about 8 seconds in.

ETA:

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?
Click to expand...
Only history can judge Stundie-worthiness...



Seriously, though: at work we have a change control process that's designed to encourage as many good ideas as possible. So anyone can submit a request for a change, and while there are some general guidelines and a template to follow, there are very few restrictions on the content of the request. The requests are all reviewed by a change control board, which makes go/no-go decisions, assigns follow-up investigations, and sets priorities.

The point is, even in the serious business of making changes and enhancements to medical devices, all ideas (within a set of broad guidelines) are welcome for consideration.

In the case of this fake, non-serious "award", we have a democratically-elected tyrant in place of a change control board, and we rank "go" submissions democratically rather than having our priorities set by a product manager, but in a general sense the process is remarkably similar.

The guidelines for submission in the OP cover practical concerns (like having a link to the quote) and etiquette (discouraging ad hominems and unnecessary commentary) but doesn't, and shouldn't, speak to "Stundie-worthiness". The whole point of the "award" is to elect the most "Stundie-worthy" nomination.
 
qarnos said:
In this video about 8 seconds in.

ETA:

I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?
Click to expand...

A good question.

I think a while ago someone actually informally stated what a Stundie nomination was and it was along the lines of scientifically illogical etc. I don't think criteria were actually laid down formally except to say that 1. It shouldn't be Ad Hom and 2. it shouldn't be for a spelling mistake.

Even though I disagree fundamentally with the concept of the Stundies I think both of these criteria showed a willingness to address the issue and are general rules for the whole forum anyway.

It is probably no surprise to you that I believe that nomination to be Ad Hom. I have some thoughts to share that are not necessarily based upon logic.

1. Why am I laughing at the nomination?

2. Am I laughing AT or WITH the nominee?

3. If the nominee was stood in a room with me while I derided the post would I feel comfortable with it?

4. Is the NOMINATED STATEMENT inherently unreasonable.

The one "skeptic" nomination which was HeyLeroy was used as an example that the nominations are open to everyone. The one thing that set it apart was that the JREFers laughed WITH him. I have yet to see a single other nomination that wasn't directed with malice at the poster because of his views about 911CT.
 
William Rea said:
A good question.

I think a while ago someone actually informally stated what a Stundie nomination was and it was along the lines of scientifically illogical etc. I don't think criteria were actually laid down formally except to say that 1. It shouldn't be Ad Hom and 2. it shouldn't be for a spelling mistake.

Even though I disagree fundamentally with the concept of the Stundies I think both of these criteria showed a willingness to address the issue and are general rules for the whole forum anyway.

It is probably no surprise to you that I believe that nomination to be Ad Hom. I have some thoughts to share that are not necessarily based upon logic.

1. Why am I laughing at the nomination?

2. Am I laughing AT or WITH the nominee?

3. If the nominee was stood in a room with me while I derided the post would I feel comfortable with it?

4. Is the NOMINATED STATEMENT inherently unreasonable.

The one "skeptic" nomination which was HeyLeroy was used as an example that the nominations are open to everyone. The one thing that set it apart was that the JREFers laughed WITH him. I have yet to see a single other nomination that wasn't directed with malice at the poster because of his views about 911CT.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. Which you share ad nauseum.
We get that you don't like them. You don't get that we really don't care.
So, why do you continue to waste your time with this?
 
William Rea said:
It is probably no surprise to you that I believe that nomination to be Ad Hom.
Click to expand...
It resembles the Tu Quoque fallacy (which many consider a form of Ad Hominem) but it's not. In this case, it's an example of "ethical symmetry":
The Tu Quoque fallacy mimics the legitimate use of the principle of ethical symmetry. However, an error is introduced. It is fair to say that if one reasoner is not entitled to use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it either, but it does not follow from this that if one reasoner uses an illegitimate appeal (and is allowed to get away with it) that the appeal then becomes legitimate. Cheating does not become fair play merely because someone else cheats first. Fair play requires that no one cheat.
Click to expand...
Dylan is holding Killtown to a higher ethical standard than that to which he holds himself. Implicitly pointing out this "ethical asymmetry" is not fallacious, even if we laugh at Dylan for it.
 
qarnos said:
I'll also add a comment here, since we have been talking about "tightening up" Teh Stundies; Does Dylan's above quote qualify for Stundieness? Coming out of his mouth, we can all see how hilariously ironic it is - but the actual statement itself is quite reasonable.

So, is laughingly ironic material like this stundie-worthy based solely on the irony? Or does it require more scientific demerit to qualify?
Click to expand...



I'd say yes. The Stundies are (IMO) fundamentally about how the twoofers lack a certain basic level of connection to the real world, and how this lack of connection leads them into erroneous (and hi-larious) conclusions that are at odds with reality, but which they insist are better than the conclusions drawn by other, better educated and more reality-based observers.

In this case, Dylan sees just enough reality to raise a good point, but not enough to apply that observation to himself or his beliefs, despite it being a perfectly valid point.

It's similar to an earlier case with Killtown (that he has recently expanded on in his blog), where KT asks the question, "Would you fly fully-loaded airplanes into buildings you had pre-wired with explosives?" KT makes the perfectly valid point that the plane impacts would be likely to disrupt the explosive's wiring, or predetonate some explosives. But from that, he then concludes that there must not have been any planes, rather than the more reasonable conclusion, there must not have been any explosives.

This ability to ask perfectly good questions, and then totally blow the perfectly good answers in favour of ridiculous Rube Goldberg CTs, is what makes them Stundie-worthy.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
It's a fascinating study in the truth behind the 'truth'.

The kid thinks of himself as a good christian, but his desires make him loathe himself. He has an obsession with porn, but instead of taking responsibility for this himself, he seeks to blame some mysterious NWO or satanic cult for ensnaring him.

'Truthers' whine when we point out that a belief in the NWO/Illuminati/reptoids being behind 911 is a psychological condition manifesting itself as a desire to see an enemy they can blame for everything they hate about themselves and their lives, as opposed to a real enemy you can see on your tv screens but which has nothing to do with how bad they might be feeling about themselves at any given time.

And here we have this LCF poster who perfectly illustrates that mentality.
Click to expand...

Very well put. One of the foremost source of woo-woo is the need to make sense of something that is arbritrary and impersonal, in my opinion.
 
stateofgrace said:
A little goldmine of Stundies.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10327

Thread : Ways to predict the next big attack @ LCF.

LUCUS.

8bitagent.

sleepy2k16

femafuncamp

8bitagent

Who need security services and counter terrorist organisations? Just watch the dates, spy on anybody who may be vaguely important and if any doubt rely on your dreams to wade off terrorist’s intent on death and destruction.
Click to expand...

Unholy mother of hell! These people are far, far off the deep end.

Oh, he had a dream about August. Stop the press!
 
New forums member Caustic Logic posts a tongue-in-cheek thread suggesting jokingly that the JREF forum was created in August 2001 because the JREF knew ahead of time about the 9/11 attacks and wanted to have an anti-Truther contingent at the ready. After a couple of chuckles from sensible people, Lyte Trip jumps in and proclaims it quite likely:

Lyte Trip said:
hmm. didn't know that. What excellent timing, that all these critical thinkers with 'superior intelligence' would be able to have a forum to help mobilize an opposition against those seeking truth in the matters of 9/11.
Click to expand...


As if to convince us, Lyte then goes on to explain some of the other fishy stuff about this here forum:

Lyte Trip said:
Did you also know that they require proof of ID for those that are threats to them.

They required me to send my DL and personal data about myself to prove my identity.

They did the same to my partner Aldo. But he would not cave in to those demands.

Clearly, they try to eliminate those that are threats to their "reality".

Let's just remember, that these are anonymous people who pride themselves in namecalling, vile tactics, infiltration, and forms of mini-psy-ops and intimidation.

I would not doubt that this forum is more than what we are lead to believe it is.

The second all these core members come clean and provide names and proof of identity of who they are, people can lower their suspicion.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom