November Stundie Nominations

[Robrob]

Why do that when the US went to the trouble and expense to build atomic bombs?

I suspect that the top leaders knew that building an atom bomb was an impossible project from the start. So the Manhattan Project was just a charade to fool the people. Remember how 'miraculously' the Manhattan Project just 'happened' to be completed just in time before the war was totally over.

I rest my case...

 

[Robrob]

It's almost not fair...

About as miraculous as finding your car keys just before you stop looking for them...

No, the war was already practically won before the atom bombs were used. So the timing of the completion of the project is suspiciously timed.

 

[Kid Eager]

This one's worth a nomination simply because it's so crass:

Fair enough,

I too have trouble understanding why you want to smash children to death on rocks with soft policies that draw people here on dangerous journies, but that's what you want and lucky you will get to see it again I predict.

 

[sylvan8798]

You need a link Harte

 

[Klimax]

This one's worth a nomination simply because it's so crass:

Don't see much of stundie and most probably context is missing. Not that it is too clear post either...

That discussion you took it from is strange anyway.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anders Lindman is racking up almost a nomination per hour here:

No. It's not about obedience. It's about critical thinking. Truth needs no proof.

It's not really funny, but it's short and stucking foopid.

 

[Tomtomkent]

One has to wonder why you would open a thread asking if there are hidden messages in the media, or if you may be psychotic, if you...

.... hate hearing that I sound psychotic.

the full quote for context (it's about the plenty of evidence he has for telepathic broadcasts.....)

Remember the quote that family guy said about not talking about the machine. I think that the people that hear these broadcasts may be persuaded not to discuss it. I could tell you what they say but I hate hearing that I sound psychotic.

 

[Garrison]

Anders Lindman is racking up almost a nomination per hour here:

No. It's not about obedience. It's about critical thinking. Truth needs no proof.

It's not really funny, but it's short and stucking foopid.

Picture the scene in a police station:

"Come on your alibi for the night your wife was murdered is you were climbing Mount Everest with Santa Claus?"

"It's the truth officer!"

"Oh, well in that case you're free to go."

 

[Robrob]

One has to wonder why you would open a thread asking if there are hidden messages in the media, or if you may be psychotic, if you...

I'm not in charge but posters like that are fish in a barrel, almost too easy to count for a true stundie.

 

[Brainache]

From a discussion about the paparazzi stalking of author J.K. Rowling's children; apparently fictional characters deserve their privacy too?

Originally Posted by duke1956
"A child, no matter who their parents are, deserves privacy. ... It's a fairly black-and-white issue,"

Except for the fictional Harry Potter, whose life is exposed in pain staking detail. Hmm, I'm getting conflicting messages.

"Pain Staking Detail."

I don't remember the pain stakes in HP...

 

[slowsmile]

"Pain Staking Detail."

I don't remember the pain stakes in HP...

That would be the cruciatus curse..........

 

[uk_dave]

"Pain Staking Detail."

I don't remember the pain stakes in HP...

It's in the Adult version.

 

[000063]

I doubt if your "load paths" are all in one basket.

He tries so hard to look clever, really he does.

 

[Longfellow]

I thought they meant Klingon Painstiks in a bit of cross-genre action but perhaps not.

Heh. I picture a wizard trying to use the Cruciatus curse on a Klingon only to have him laughingly say "You call that pain you Hu'tegh petaQ? I endured worse during my Rite of Ascension"

 

[Spindrift]

Clayton Moore takes homophones for $200, Alex.

That's actually pretty clever, really. Is there any chance it was deliberate?

Honestly, it's tough to tell. That poster shows moments of lucidity.

Now that is confusing. Is CM showing utter ignorance or making a pun?
One would be a definite Stundie, the other remarkably clever.

Hard to tell.

A sub-class of Poe's Law? Can't tell the difference between a pun and language misuse? Clayton's Law?

 

[Stacko]

A sub-class of Poe's Law? Can't tell the difference between a pun and language misuse? Clayton's Law?

Shouldn't it be called Spindrift's Law then?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not sure this should qualify, since I'm not sure that Anders Lindman isn't just the most prolific troll I've ever seen, but...

Before humanity (or space aliens) came into being no evidence existed for how Earth orbits the sun, yet the truth of that fact existed even without that evidence.

Apparently gravity didn't exist before any species became consciously aware of it; planets orbited stars simply because planets orbited stars.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm not sure this should qualify, since I'm not sure that Anders Lindman isn't just the most prolific troll I've ever seen, but...




Apparently gravity didn't exist before any species became consciously aware of it; planets orbited stars simply because planets orbited stars.

Actually, I'd vote to give him a pass on that one. I think he's delving into the realm of quantum mysticism, a legitimate topic of debate. Whether that was intentional or not is another issue.

 

[akama1]

Anders brings a new version of evidence to the table, it does not exist till we observe it

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7798351#post7798351

A simple way of explaining why evidence is not the same as the truth is to show ONE SINGLE example of where this is not the case.

Here is such an example:

Before humanity (or space aliens) came into being no evidence existed for how Earth orbits the sun, yet the truth of that fact existed even without that evidence.

Q.E.D.

(Actually, it's an incredible hubris to believe that your evidence can alter the truth in any direction.)

Scratch this one, Anders has admitted he is a troll in the same thread

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Anders brings a new version of evidence to the table, it does not exist till we observe it

Again, that is a legitimate premise of quantum metaphysics.

Or rather that things exist as quantum probabilities until an observer is present.