• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

May 2007 Stundie Nominations

Mobyseven

Philosopher
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
5,671
Hey hey hey! It's The Stundies!

As far as I could tell, the rules set in place last month worked quite well - I haven't gone through the nominations yet, but from what I saw as the month went on the rules were more or less abided by. The result was less nominations than in March, but this is what would be expected, with the rules cutting out some of the less funny and more potentially abusive nominations.

To recap for those who may have forgotten, for the lurkers and for the newbies:

  1. Nominations should always be accompanied by a link or a screenshot, to confirm that the quote exists and has not been taken out of context. (It would be wise to always have a backup screenshot, as truth movement forums are well known for deleting entire threads.)
  2. Stundie nominations should 'stand alone'. Do not over-embellish introductions, but do provide comments. Do not use any blatant ad hominem attacks.
  3. Please post the nomination under the real screenname of the nominee, and not under a slightly altered name (e.g. Killclown, Roxpup, Do-over).
  4. The best Stundie nominations are short and sweet. As a guideline, no more than 6 lines should be included from the post. If you are giving context, highlight the actual nomination.
  5. No long rants. Cut them down to the funniest bit.
  6. No speeling mistikes. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while!

Well, that's my little bit for the moment! Let the nominations begin!
 
LUCUS @ LCF said:
yes because the new world order is about to place the entire blame for 9/11 on bush/cheney...

It's their plan b...that's why daddy bush balled like a lil girl, he knows they are going down

ETA:include image
 

Attachments

  • LUCUS2.jpg
    LUCUS2.jpg
    99.6 KB · Views: 55
Last edited:
And the very first nomination breaks the very first rule!

We're off to a great start!
 
Would a spelling mistake be acceptable if it involved someone ridiculing someone for making a spelling mistake?

For example someone going:

Hah hah you spelt "structure" wrong, how can we expect to take you seriously about the aerodynamics of airliners?

-Gumboot
 
in the "Fires lead to california overpass collapes" thread, Apollo20 said:
Originally Posted by Apollo20
And finally, I HAVE contacted NIST and been completely ignored!


to which our very own ~enigma~ replied
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2566169#post2566169


Why? What did NIST say to dismiss your ideas?
er, ~enigma~ if they ignored him, they didn't say anything.
You see, that is how you can tell---nevermind....

ETA--either my coordination has gone to pot, or my keyboard is conspiring with the CPU to mikesue thsm is unintelligable!
 
And the very first nomination breaks the very first rule!

We're off to a great start!

...oy vey. Well, it's fixed now!

Would a spelling mistake be acceptable if it involved someone ridiculing someone for making a spelling mistake?

For example someone going:

Hah hah you spelt "structure" wrong, how can we expect to take you seriously about the aerodynamics of airliners?

-Gumboot

It really depends on the context (and how funny it is). I'd say no in most contexts, but if there is a direct attack on a person's credibility based on a spelling mistake in your proposed nomination there might be a case for it. You can post it here and let others weigh in their opinions on it, provided it doesn't go against any of the other rules it may have a case.

After all, attacking a person's credibility based on a single speeling mistake is pretty stupid anyway...that may be alternate grounds for nomination right there.

Gee...can't tell I'm at law school, can you? :p
 
Just to clarify my post above.

The nomination wasn't made due to tabouere's poor English. It was nominated for the fact that he thinks every floor of every building in the world is 8ft tall.
 
Just to clarify my post above.

The nomination wasn't made due to tabouere's poor English. It was nominated for the fact that he thinks every floor of every building in the world is 8ft tall.

Well, if you consider "About" as having a tolerance of +100, -0 feet, then its OK.
 
uk_dave, that's exactly the point, we saw it with our own eyes and therefore we have to adjust (but not change) our assumptions in order to explain it. In this way it is impossible to find the real reason. How far can one go with this ? Assume a burning football flows into the building and it collapses then with this method it is easy to make the collapse plausible. Of course nobody to blame, you have to come up with something. Are the spherical particles already debunked in the mean time? Is it friction, exploded generators ?
But we don't have to care about it because it is only the initiation that matters..

Adjust our assumptions without changing them? It's impossible to find the truth if we change our assumptions depending on the evidence? A burning football flows into a bar? This post has it all.
 
Adjust our assumptions without changing them? It's impossible to find the truth if we change our assumptions depending on the evidence? A burning football flows into a bar? This post has it all.
Sounds like the start of a bad joke.
"So a burning football flows into a bar..."
Anyone got the punchline for this?
 
Sounds like the start of a bad joke.
"So a burning football flows into a bar..."
Anyone got the punchline for this?

I was trying to get either "as the vicar said to the nun" or something involving a horse and a barman in there, but somehow neither of them seemed to fit.
 
You shake my nerves and you rattle my brain
9/11 drives a man insane
You're Dubya's shill, oh what a thrill
Goodness gracious great balls of fire

You learned to love all that neo-con money
NIST is wrong and the Towers fell funny
I'll change your mind, Silverstein
Goodness gracious great balls of fire

You NIST me baby, woo.....it feels good
Hold me baby, learn to let me woo you like a woo-woo should
Your kind is so blind
I'm would tell this world that you're lyin' lyin' lyin'

I chew my nails and I twiddle my thumbs
I'm really nervous but it sure is fun
Come on baby, you drive me crazy
Goodness gracious great balls of fire
 
Last edited:
You shake my nerves and you rattle my brain
9/11 drives a man insane
You're Dubya's shill, oh what a thrill
Goodness gracious great balls of fire

You learned to love all that neo-con money
NIST is wrong and the Towers fell funny
I'll change your mind, Silverstein
Goodness gracious great balls of fire

You NIST me baby, woo.....it feels good
Hold me baby, learn to let me woo you like a woo-woo should
Your kind is so blind
I'm would tell this world that you're lyin' lyin' lyin'

I chew my nails and I twiddle my thumbs
I'm really nervous but it sure is fun
Come on baby, you drive me crazy
Goodness gracious great balls of fire


You did that in nine minutes? Impressive. Very Impressive! :jedi:
 
Well, if you consider "About" as having a tolerance of +100, -0 feet, then its OK.

Not according to Christopher7.

He thinks the word "around" means "right next to" in all instances. So "around" 8 feet means between 7.9 and 8.1 feet.

"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.

Around means "something surrounds a place or object or is situated on all sides of it".

It does NOT mean "The other end of the building"
 

Back
Top Bottom