June 2007 Stundie Nominations

[chipmunk stew]

I don't know, I think this is pretty Stundie-worthy:

...the information...is like drinking from a fire hydrant.

 

[Horatius]

Here's the video for comparison - it's short.....

Fixed your youtube link!

 

[gumboot]

Please read slowly. Whew!
Craig Ranke CIT

It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence which the evidence that contradicts it proves is the deception the first place.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10714&st=150

I keep coming back to this sentence. I still cannot believe it was written by a human being, and not a chimpanzee on a typewriter. I cannot fathom what sort of nomination could wrest my vote away from this pearl of a remark.

Mobyseven, I will be most disappointed if this one does not make the finals!

-Gumboot

 

[Foolmewunz]

Fixed your youtube link!

Thanks... the phone rang and I didn't double-check the link in the "preview" which I always do. That'll learn me!

ETA: Dang! Missed the deadline to edit the post and fix it there.

 

[Papermache]

I don't know, I think this is pretty Stundie-worthy:

Perhaps Headhunter was inspired by this.

Former MIT President ['71-'80] Jerome Weisner coined a colorful and often quoted description of the MIT educational experience:

"Getting an Education from MIT is like taking a drink from a Fire Hose."​

 

[chipmunk stew]

Perhaps Headhunter was inspired by this.

Former MIT President ['71-'80] Jerome Weisner coined a colorful and often quoted description of the MIT educational experience:​

"Getting an Education from MIT is like taking a drink from a Fire Hose."​

Huh. I'd never heard that before. It's a strange simile, isn't it? Doesn't sound like much of an education.



...Wait, is Headhunter comparing Truthiness indoctrination to an MIT education?!?

 

[HeyLeroy]

I keep coming back to this sentence. I still cannot believe it was written by a human being, and not a chimpanzee on a typewriter. I cannot fathom what sort of nomination could wrest my vote away from this pearl of a remark.

Mobyseven, I will be most disappointed if this one does not make the finals!

-Gumboot

Thirded.

 

[Slayhamlet]

You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?

Oh Malcolm, Malcolm, Malcolm...

 

[nicepants]

Peer-review.....who needs it?

After claiming that Steven Jones' paper was peer-reviewed, Earthquake of LCF was asked what scientific publication it was submitted to...

It wasn't published in any scientific publication. Though this means nothing anyhow. He published it online.

Because publishing online is the ultimate way to get credibility.....just ask Killtown...

and my personal favorite....

Peer-Review means NOTHING!

-bolding was his.

Link to post

Screenshot (for those banned)

 

[Gravy]

There is apparently a shortage of Oxford English Dictionaries at Oxford:

It may be a roadblock, but clearly doesnt stop the overwhelming preponderance of their desired military plans.

 

[nicepants]

There is apparently a shortage of Oxford English Dictionaries at Oxford:

LOL he must be referring to those ever-elusive optional roadblocks

 

[tacodaemon]

You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?

Oh Malcolm, Malcolm, Malcolm...

Hey, I came in here to nominate that one for a Stundie!

I would have started with the "There was practically..." since that works outside context, though. (The context was why Edna Cintron was standing in the hole at the edge of the North Tower in those famous photos; Malcolm was told it was because the plane had plowed pretty much everything into the building so there wasn't much to burn right at the edge of the entry hole.)

 

[qarnos]

I keep coming back to this sentence. I still cannot believe it was written by a human being, and not a chimpanzee on a typewriter. I cannot fathom what sort of nomination could wrest my vote away from this pearl of a remark.

Mobyseven, I will be most disappointed if this one does not make the finals!

-Gumboot

When I read things like that I can't help but think it's one of our NWO operatives going undercover.

I mean... it's just so... ridiculous!

 

[Foolmewunz]

Ya know what'd be really fun. Place that one post, only, in the finals... sit back with a nice bottle of zinfandel, and watch William deconstruct and defend it.

 

[tacodaemon]

Ya know what'd be really fun. Place that one post, only, in the finals... sit back with a nice bottle of zinfandel, and watch William deconstruct and defend it.

Yeah, as much as I like that Kirkman quote about no carpeting or other flammable things inside the WTC (I even put up a whole post of pictures of carpeting inside the WTC), I think Lyte/Craig's got a good shot for a second Stundie. Would that make him the first to repeat?

 

[gumboot]

You are quite right when you say that there was practically nothing to burn in that immediate area. Why stop there? There was practically nothing to burn in the building at all. The corridors were not carpeted, neither were the bulk of the offices. So what is there to burn?

Hey, I came in here to nominate that one for a Stundie!

So did I!

-Gumboot

 

[Mobyseven]

I sense a disturbance in the farce...like a handful of JREFers cried out suddenly for a Craig Ranke quote, and then were silenced by a kitty.

 

[R.Mackey]

An old friend of ours pops in with a leading candidate for Incomprehensible Sentence of the Week.

Craig's now wearing his rank on his sig!

It's in the interminable What Hit The Pentagon thread.

Please read slowly. Whew!

It's circular logic to suggest that strong evidence proving there was a serious deception that took place during this operation of deception is null and void because of the physical evidence which the evidence that contradicts it proves is the deception the first place.

Hokey smokes. Missed this one.

I think Lyte just broke teh Stundies.

 

[tacodaemon]

Hokey smokes. Missed this one.

I think Lyte just broke teh Stundies.

The scary thing is that, being familiar with Lyte's work, I actually understand what he meant by that sentence.

He acknowledges all the evidence that a plane approached from the south of the Citgo and hit the Pentagon. Let's call this "the physical evidence".

However, he considers the physical evidence to have been faked as part of "the deception". Therefore, in his mind, it doesn't make sense to use the physical evidence to argue that "the deception" didn't happen.

As proof that the deception did happen, he points to his other "evidence" -- eyewitnesses pointing to an approach north of the Citgo. Let's call this "the eyewitness evidence".

So his sentence means: "It's circular reasoning to invalidate the eyewitness evidence by citing the physical evidence, because the eyewitness evidence proves that the physical evidence is part of the deception."

He's cracked.

 

[gumboot]

The scary thing is that, being familiar with Lyte's work, I actually understand what he meant by that sentence.

He acknowledges all the evidence that a plane approached from the south of the Citgo and hit the Pentagon. Let's call this "the physical evidence".

However, he considers the physical evidence to have been faked as part of "the deception". Therefore, in his mind, it doesn't make sense to use the physical evidence to argue that "the deception" didn't happen.

As proof that the deception did happen, he points to his other "evidence" -- eyewitnesses pointing to an approach north of the Citgo. Let's call this "the eyewitness evidence".

So his sentence means: "It's circular reasoning to invalidate the eyewitness evidence by citing the physical evidence, because the eyewitness evidence proves that the physical evidence is part of the deception."

He's cracked.

He's using circular reasoning to prove that our argument refuting his claims is circular reasoning, while oblivious to the fact that his claims are themselves circular reasoning.

It's Stundilicious!

-Gumboot