• 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 Stundie Finals

Vote for the best Stundie of May

  • 1) Navy Seal extra sharpshooter

    Votes: 26 23.4%

  • 2) Probably probable

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • 3) Molten hydrogen

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • 4) We've never been to war in Korea

    Votes: 28 25.2%

  • 5) Navy confounded by land

    Votes: 38 34.2%

  • 6) Why isn't fiction real?

    Votes: 21 18.9%

  • 7) Osama Bin Bloodwork

    Votes: 14 12.6%

  • 8) Murder but not

    Votes: 12 10.8%

  • 9) Bird songs for math

    Votes: 18 16.2%

  • 10) Google: powering CTU

    Votes: 19 17.1%

  • 11) Other cultures can't be real

    Votes: 16 14.4%

  • 12) Nuclear impenetrability

    Votes: 9 8.1%

  • 13) What is "true" anyways?

    Votes: 15 13.5%

  • 14) Not one iota

    Votes: 5 4.5%

  • 15) Astronmer schmalongler

    Votes: 35 31.5%

  • 16) Explosive idea streamlined

    Votes: 27 24.3%

  • 17) Hot water ain't what it used to be

    Votes: 21 18.9%

  • 18) We don't need evidence

    Votes: 14 12.6%

  • 19) Fake fakery is fake

    Votes: 4 3.6%

  • 20) Collapses don't happen in threes

    Votes: 25 22.5%
  • Total voters
    111
  • Poll closed .
RE #6: They did, in fact, try and get people off the WTC. Unfortunately, the roof door was locked, IIRC.
 
What makes 15 interesting is that the poster was actually a moon hoax debunker. That tirade was made when a real hoax believer pointed out that MR Plait had once stated that is is possible that retro-reflectors were placed on the moon by robots.
 
Travis said:
What makes 15 interesting is that the poster was actually a moon hoax debunker. That tirade was made when a real hoax believer pointed out that MR Plait had once stated that is is possible that retro-reflectors were placed on the moon by robots.
Click to expand...

I just like the outrage. Putting "proof" in quotes, using the word "freaking" to add drama to the claim.

It's also funny that he/she is upset about telescopes. Not some new-fangled quantum based something-or-other that's confusing or controversial, a telescope.

It's akin to denying the existence of germs, "You want some ******* with a microscope telling you to wash your hands?"

That's my favorite kind of stundie. Raging against something that has been commonly used for 500 years. When they start denying things on such a fundamental level, the comedy gets rolling.
 
Travis said:
What makes 15 interesting is that the poster was actually a moon hoax debunker. That tirade was made when a real hoax believer pointed out that MR Plait had once stated that is is possible that retro-reflectors were placed on the moon by robots.
Click to expand...

It's about time a debunker won a Stundie. That would really confuse the CTs.

Dave
 
I don't think anything of the sort was actually "tried" unless you call getting close enough to the roof to know that there was too much smoke coming up to land on it a "try".
 
Oooooh- choices choices! #7 is sheer stupidity, and #16 is simply stunned. So, does the definition of 'Stundie' lean more towards the technical, or the banal?

I think I'll go technical.
 
I voted for seven of them. That's a record for me.

#2 is my favorite.
 
Still pretty even after my votes (2, 5, 13, 15). We haven't had a tie for the win in a while; I think this would be a good month for one.
 
This thread needed a bump anyway.

I voted for 2,5,13. I was tempted to vote for 19, but I decided it's just sad.
 
I nearly voted for 5 as well as 2, but I was confused by the implication in the stundie that Pakistan is actually landlocked, when here was me thinking it has an extensive coastline.

Would that do?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I nearly voted for 5 as well as 2, but I was confused by the implication in the stundie that Pakistan is actually landlocked, when here was me thinking it has an extensive coastline.

Would that do?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I voted for 5 because it's a double stundie. The poster couldn't be bothered to check that, in fact, Pakistan has a large coastline. But it doesn't even matter, because even if Pakistan was landlocked, there's no reason to think the Navy wouldn't base an attack from one of our bases in Afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom