May 2007 Stundie Nominations

Belz... said:
More of Malcom, who thinks the 767 that hit the WTC:



Linky
Click to expand...

Seriously is Malcom's ambition that we rename the Stundies, the "Kirkman's"? If Stundie wasn't on fire at the moment, it would certainly be a goer.

Can we name the runner up for the Stundie after him?
 
8den said:
Seriously is Malcom's ambition that we rename the Stundies, the "Kirkman's"? If Stundie wasn't on fire at the moment, it would certainly be a goer.

Can we name the runner up for the Stundie after him?
Click to expand...



Perhaps we could use Kirkman as an add-on award for those who win more than one Stundie - like getting extra stars or chevrons on a medal. He could be awarded the Stundie with two Kirkmans.
 
Horatius said:
Perhaps we could use Kirkman as an add-on award for those who win more than one Stundie - like getting extra stars or chevrons on a medal. He could be awarded the Stundie with two Kirkmans.
Click to expand...


I second this motion. Like getting a VC and bar. You get a Stundie and Kirkman.

-Gumboot
 
The Malcolm Kirkman Award for tenacity in the face of being proved wrong on everything!
 
Entries are now closed for the month of May.​

Any last moment nominations can be posted in the June Nominations thread.

I will find a way to incorporate an award bearing Kirkman's name somehow.
 
Righto - put that one in the June nomination thread, it should be up now.

That's golden...Mark, what did you actually post there to get such a reaction?

Expect the voting thread in a few days - there's a fair bit to wade through here...
 
qarnos said:
Having not followed the thread in question, I will take your word for it that this is what transpired.

If this is the case, then it appears Dave Rogers either misunderstood what Eugene was arguing, or misunderstood Galileo's experiment.

Then nominate it and stop carrying on with this Childlike-esque holier-than-thou attitude. Otherwise, take your debate to the thread in question and leave this one to The Stundies.
Click to expand...

You started the post so well and then drifted into the same sort of vein of posting as your colleagues, which is a shame because I have noticed that you have a reasonable streak in your posting.

The debate is the validity of the Stundie nomination based upon rational analysis of the quote selected for nomination. This is why I intend to debate it in here rather than in the thread it was originally posted. I have no control over your perception of my posts as you describe them in the phrase "Childlike-esque holier-than-thou attitude". All I can do is ask you to read back and notice that it is me that is remaining factual and rational in the analysis whilst few others are able to. If that is "Childlike-esque holier-than-thou attitude" then so be it.

It is clear to me that EugeneAxeman was saying that a controlled demolition was the only explanation for the towers falling in a similar time span since undermining the structure beneath the falling sections would essentially put both masses into freefall in which case they would follow Galileo's principle. He is proposing that as the falling mass of one tower was greater than the other, if the structure under each was not undermined then the greater falling mass with the greater kinetic energy would destroy the structure beneath it more effectively. I can see no other logical analysis of what he has said.

EugeneAxeman's analysis may be based upon an initially false premise (CD) but it is not Stundieworthy.

What EugeneAxeman is clearly NOT saying is that Galileo was wrong, which was the basis of Dave Roger's nomination.
 
This is an automated messaging service.
If you'd like to post a nomination, please press ONE now.
If you need further assistance, please press <Alt-F4> now.
 
Mobyseven said:
That's golden...Mark, what did you actually post there to get such a reaction?
Click to expand...
I've got to face the truth: I have failed to prove that I'm skeptical of 9/11 conspiracist claims. I am re-committing myself to the effort, and I promise to do better during the rest of 2007.
 
Gravy said:
I've got to face the truth: I have failed to prove that I'm skeptical of 9/11 conspiracist claims. I am re-committing myself to the effort, and I promise to do better during the rest of 2007.
Click to expand...

It would probably HELP IF YOU TYPED IN CAPS MORE!

How can you be skeptical without any caps? Hell, I'm not even skeptical of what I'm typing right here. Did you know that bigfoot crushed the twin towers with his hands? I didn't until I just made it up now, but I'm so not skeptical I'll believe anything right now.
 
William Rea said:
EugeneAxeman's analysis may be based upon an initially false premise (CD) but it is not Stundieworthy.
Click to expand...

That's not up to you to decide, thank Ed.

Why don't you wait until I've actually decided on what makes the finals this month, then complain.
 
JonnyFive said:
Did you know that bigfoot crushed the twin towers with his hands? I didn't until I just made it up now, but I'm so not skeptical I'll believe anything right now.
Click to expand...



Yeah, right. WHY would bigFOOT use HIS HANDS?


Shwill!
 
Horatius said:
Perhaps we could use Kirkman as an add-on award for those who win more than one Stundie - like getting extra stars or chevrons on a medal. He could be awarded the Stundie with two Kirkmans.
Click to expand...
I third this motion.
 
Belz... said:
Oh. My.
Click to expand...

Mr. Kirkman seems to be convinced that it would be impossible for the hijackers to locate New York after lifting off from Boston.

Hell, even without GPS it's not that difficult to do something along the lines of ... "Hmm, Boston is on the coast and New York is south on the coast. I'll keep the coast on my left."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom