April Stundie Nomination thread

Our first nomination from the Holocaust denial brigade this month comes from Friedrich Paul Berg, aka Freaky Freddy Berg, who first began denying the Holocaust 30 years ago when the TV series was screened.

Although a 'published' denier and the proud owner of his own website (nazigassings.com), he spends much of his time trolling internet forums - a sad and cautionary tale in its own right.


The "real" court to ultimately settle all these issues is NOT any of the "courts" that sickies like Muehlenkamp spend years learning how to perform in--but places like the internet where people thrash out their "evidence" and beliefs indefinitely, if they chose to.
Click to expand...
In this new world order, the sickies are losing because the holocaust really is a pile of crap. The highfalutin decrees and judgments of the court fairies in their black dresses, ultimately, mean absolutely nothing! Try to get a real job, Muehlenkamp! Be a man and make something out of your worthless life.[/QUOTE]

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/10603?page=-1
Click to expand...
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Scientists can extract DNA from a 35,000 year old bone, but a 9 year old bone? Science has only come so far.
Click to expand...

I'd like to stundie every debunker in that thread especially you.

Hey UNLoVedRebel? I got an old can of Quaker State somewhere in my garage. Do you want it?. The museum of natural history might be interested. It might be a missing dinosaur they've been looking for. It's all yours. Don't be modest. You can use the money. You're welcome.
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/2/853657/-Results-dont-back-up-Fox-High-Ratings


I couldn't pick just one line from this particular link. I think it needs to be taken as a whole. The logic on display is quite stundie-licious as far as I'm concerned.

eta: It seems like I would probably need to select an excerpt. If a short quote is needed I choose this one.

In fact, according to the results i listed above, it is difficult and even impossible for me to believe their rating are going up, unless most of the people listening to them are not voting
Click to expand...

But you really need to read the whole thing to get a better picture of the ridiculous logic on display.

His argument is basically that Fox News rigs the ratings in their favor in order to encourage more networks to move to the right. His proof for that is that Republicans aren't winning all the elections.
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
I'll chip in here, extracting DNA and extracting enough quality DNA to be suitable to make a positive identification of an individual are two distinct things.
I don't doubt that bone will yield some DNA. Whether or not that DNA will be sufficient to identify it as belonging to a certain person depends on the conditions it was stored in. If it was fragmented and left sitting in moist conditions for that time - and it most certainly was fragmented - then it is possible the DNA it contains will be too degraded to be of much use.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

In that thread, links were provided to scientists saying DNA could be extracted from samples as small as half a finger.
 
Three stundie nominations in one thread:
Profanz said:
So when is the debunker fossil expedition slated for down at the fresh kills? Do you really think anything can be extracted from the mineralized remains enough to try and get a DNA match? You guys are such genesis. And optimistic too! I learn so much from all of you. I love it here.

Dinosaurs. I never would have thunk of that. duuuuhhhhh
Click to expand...
 
CompusMentus said:
It seems that on 7th day God didn't rest after all. He created the Stundies so we could all piss ourselves laughing at Profanz.....


Compus
Click to expand...

He does have that effect,the forms would be a poorer place without his ilk.
 
orphia nay said:
In that thread, links were provided to scientists saying DNA could be extracted from samples as small as half a finger.
Click to expand...

Um, yeah, well useful DNA to positively identify the culprit can be extracted from skin cells left on a metal bar used to open a window. The size of the sample not an issue here. One cell does the trick in theory, and if you're doing mitochondrial DNA you don't even need that much.

The issue is how the said DNA was stored once it was deposited. If it was frozen in permafrost, it can yield useful information for thousands of years. If it was stored in warm and moist environment, it can be all but useless in one or two days.

It also depends on what it was stored on. Useful amounts of DNA are found in bones for many years if the bone was reasonably whole. A fragmented bone would be more exposed to degradation.

What I'm trying to say is that the two examples that were presented here are in no way comparable and parallels shouldn't be drawn between them.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Nominating jammonius for his response to a question asking him how he made the leap of faith that a van driving down the street, which was totally different from a van he pointed out in a prior photograph, was the "perps" getting away:

jammonius said:
By thinking and by proper use of reason, that's how.
Click to expand...

ETA: Whole long post is here, but the last line is the only part I'm nominating.

My irony meter just asploded....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom