The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: narcberry on May 27, 2008, 09:33:00 PM

Title: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on May 27, 2008, 09:33:00 PM
Narc's FE Guide: Index

I have decided to build several guides to consolidate information based on topics. This thread will be continually updated to link to the, hopefully many, guides I will post.

Guide Title   Forum Link
Reference   
The Flat Earth Model   21447 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21147.0)
RE compared to FE   20406 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20406)
RE Urban Legends   21167 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21167.0)
The Best of RE Science   21210 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21210.0)
Index   21146 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21146.0)
My Writings   
Tips to being an RE'er   12156 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12156.0)
Floating Oceans   16948 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16948.0)
Trinity of Proof   12194 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12194.0)
Poll: FE vs. RE   11882 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11882.0)
Which way is up again?   12255 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12255.0)
Gravitons, a discussion   15565 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15565.0)
To the females of these boards  17673 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17673.0)
Shoe results are in  12866 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12866.0)
Perverts or Xmen15981 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15981.0)
NASA uses modified picture format22051 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22051.0)
Published Works   
State of FES   /. (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/10/1241218)
Peer reviewed comments   Org (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10327;sa=showPosts)
Peer reviewed comments   Net (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4;sa=showPosts)
Further Reading   
Correlation between Round Earthism and bad grammar?   11576 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11576.0)
0.999... != 1   21984 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21984.0)
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: lived_eht_asan on May 27, 2008, 10:15:40 PM
Well I do have to admit you are damn funny.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 28, 2008, 05:52:22 AM
Everyday I love you more and more Narc
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Doctor Leina on May 28, 2008, 07:38:32 AM
I love you Narc.... (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/images/smilies/hump.gif)

Humada Humada
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Dimitri on May 28, 2008, 07:49:10 AM
Ever seen this

Here is an equation I have created that prooves the Earth is round.

AN equation I have formed to disprove the FE. A is the electromagnetic field and B is the dark reterention energy rays that are accelerating the earth upward. Here is how it would look for a flat earth...

a=b=1
aČ=ab
aČ-bČ=ab-bČ
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1

Not possible...

Victory for the RE!

I'm gonna be the very best...
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: divito the truthist on May 28, 2008, 07:51:16 AM
Stop with that shitty "equation."
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: John Davis on May 28, 2008, 10:27:39 AM
Ever seen this

Here is an equation I have created that prooves the Earth is round.

AN equation I have formed to disprove the FE. A is the electromagnetic field and B is the dark reterention energy rays that are accelerating the earth upward. Here is how it would look for a flat earth...

a=b=1
aČ=ab
aČ-bČ=ab-bČ
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1

Not possible...

Victory for the RE!

I'm gonna be the very best...
fail.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: physics101 on May 28, 2008, 12:18:11 PM
Ever seen this

Here is an equation I have created that prooves the Earth is round.

AN equation I have formed to disprove the FE. A is the electromagnetic field and B is the dark reterention energy rays that are accelerating the earth upward. Here is how it would look for a flat earth...

a=b=1
aČ=ab
aČ-bČ=ab-bČ
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1

Not possible...

Victory for the RE!

I'm gonna be the very best...

DAMN TROLLS, GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID EQUATION.

This is a good guide though narc, it should be stickied.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on May 28, 2008, 12:44:33 PM

a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1

Not possible...

True, but that's because 1+1 is not 1. Nothing you said makes that reasonable. You being shit at maths makes us not care what you have to say, it doesn't disprove the FE model.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: John Davis on May 28, 2008, 01:18:55 PM

a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1

Not possible...

True, but that's because 1+1 is not 1. Nothing you said makes that reasonable. You being shit at maths makes us not care what you have to say, it doesn't disprove the FE model.
a=1 b=1, a+b = 1+1 = 2
The problem was he divided by zero
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on May 28, 2008, 04:45:32 PM
This is a good guide though narc, it should be stickied.

This is nowhere near where it should be, but stickie-worthiness is the goal.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on May 28, 2008, 07:58:47 PM
In other news, I will never be stickied.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on May 28, 2008, 09:00:43 PM
It's a shame; these new guides of yours are most excellent.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Doctor Leina on May 28, 2008, 09:03:05 PM
Perhaps if you put them all in one then they would be sticky worthy.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on May 28, 2008, 09:05:20 PM
Anyone with stickie power would not stickie me.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on May 28, 2008, 09:16:55 PM
That is your curse.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 29, 2008, 03:05:28 AM
I'd stickie you if I could
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: physics101 on May 29, 2008, 08:37:11 AM
I think it's sticky worthy, and I would sticky it too, in a non gay way.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on May 30, 2008, 09:58:51 PM
I've been making frequent updates to this and other guides, enjoy.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: fancypants on May 30, 2008, 10:30:09 PM
Hi narcberry,
I think your index is fantastic! I even told my sister!
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: lived_eht_asan on May 30, 2008, 10:32:04 PM
Hi narcberry,
I think your index is fantastic! I even told my sister!

Let me guess, is your sister miss manners?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: fancypants on May 30, 2008, 10:32:46 PM
Hi lived_eht_asan,
My sister sure does have manners! Thank you for asking!
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on May 31, 2008, 02:03:10 PM
You're too trustworthy! What's your angle?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Bushido on June 17, 2008, 07:24:31 PM
[1] a=b=1
[2] aČ=ab
[3] aČ-bČ=ab-bČ
[4] (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
[5] a+b=b
[6] 1+1=1
[7] 2=1

Step [4] -> [5] : Division by zero (a - b = a - a = 0)

QFF
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on June 17, 2008, 08:17:20 PM
I just read the first few pages of the Floating Oceans thread again...

This index must be stickied at the very least! I cannot bear to think of future generations of trolls possibly missing out on this.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 04, 2008, 11:02:33 PM
Well maybe not stickied, but thanks for your support and your bump!
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 05, 2008, 02:47:28 AM
BumpedFT.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 05, 2008, 07:36:10 PM
I read RE compared to FE and have become 10x dumber because you made REer's look completely dumb and stupid scientists when actually most REer's are quite intelligent and know what their talking about. Also, all of the FE and RE responses are "<message>" (or quoted), however where did those quotes come from?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 05, 2008, 07:37:52 PM
If you need to understand how smart RE'ers are, make sure to read my article, "The best of RE science"

All my quotes can be clicked to their original source, for full context.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 05, 2008, 07:40:22 PM
I read RE compared to FE and have become 10x dumber because you made REer's look completely dumb and stupid scientists when actually most REer's are quite intelligent and know what their talking about. Also, all of the FE and RE responses are "<message>" (or quoted), however where did those quotes come from?

Read today's thread on the Bering Strait for an example of fresh RE intelligence.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 05, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
I don't always believe news, because every news producer (or station) is biased in some way. For instance CNN doesn't cover the good news of Iraq, however they do cover the bad news about Iraq.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on August 05, 2008, 08:57:29 PM
Good news about Iraq: less civilians to worry about every day!
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 05, 2008, 08:58:11 PM
We were worried?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 05, 2008, 09:07:34 PM
We were worried?

About what?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 06, 2008, 04:12:45 AM
Iraqi civilians.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on August 06, 2008, 02:54:56 PM
We were worried?

About what?
Exactly. ::)
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 02:56:31 PM
I don't always believe news, because every news producer (or station) is biased in some way. For instance CNN doesn't cover the good news of Iraq, however they do cover the bad news about Iraq.

Seriously, what good news of Iraq are you referring to?  ???
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 06, 2008, 03:05:47 PM
The fact that there are less car bombings and US soldiers being killed. But if you think 40,000 people is a lot, then look at the millions that died in WWII (all countries...about 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans died)
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on August 06, 2008, 03:07:24 PM
The fact that there are less car bombings and US soldiers being killed. But if you think 40,000 people is a lot, then look at the millions that died in WWII (all countries...about 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans died)
This really brightened my day! :D
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 06, 2008, 03:08:21 PM
Are you serious or are you making fun of the Iraq thing?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 03:24:17 PM
The fact that there are less car bombings and US soldiers being killed. But if you think 40,000 people is a lot, then look at the millions that died in WWII (all countries...about 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans died)

A couple things.

First of all, WWII was a far more justifiable war than Iraq.  In WWII half a million Americans died for a noble cause.  The war in Iraq has been senseless since the beginning.

Second, is there a number of deaths that must be reached before it's considered a "bad" thing?  What's the cutoff point?  Evidently a few hundred was an atrocious number to bear on September 11, 2001.

Third, do you just not consider the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians that take place all the time a bad thing?  Do you think the only problem  Americans have with the war in Iraq is the American deaths that have been caused?

There is absolutely nothing good about the war in Iraq, and your statement here only emphasizes that fact.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 06, 2008, 03:32:51 PM
All wars are bad, but that doesn't mean that a way is meaningless. The war is here because the insurgents took over Iraq/Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden killed innocent lives. If we wouldn't have gone there then there would be more innocent lives killed. Also, they had killed 2-4,000 US citizens. That's not good, would you look at that and be like... "Ah, it's ok, they're not suffering or anything."
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 03:38:52 PM
All wars are bad, but that doesn't mean that a way is meaningless. The war is here because the insurgents took over Iraq/Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden killed innocent lives. If we wouldn't have gone there then there would be more innocent lives killed. Also, they had killed 2-4,000 US citizens. That's not good, would you look at that and be like... "Ah, it's ok, they're not suffering or anything."

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or terrorism.  Talk about being misled by the media.  And there are other countries we could have actually justifiably invaded in the war on terrorism.  By choosing to invade Iraq instead, we are actually allowing terrorism to flourish, in addition to all the other problems it's caused.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 06, 2008, 04:28:15 PM
And even with all our motivation to control Iraq, we can't even conquer a couple dunes of sand.

In WW2 we took over Asia and Europe, after our allies had all tried and failed.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Kato on August 06, 2008, 04:39:33 PM
In WW2 we took over Asia and Europe, after our allies had all tried and failed.

Now now fellow FE'er - careful what you say....
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 06, 2008, 06:30:12 PM
We didn't take over all of Europe and Asia, we destroyed them? Yes, but we help them rebuild. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of how we destroyed them then rebuilt them.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 06:41:09 PM
We didn't take over all of Europe and Asia, we destroyed them? Yes, but we help them rebuild. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of how we destroyed them then rebuilt them.

We're such saints.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on August 06, 2008, 07:15:25 PM
lol@justifyinghiroshima/nagasaki
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Guessed on August 06, 2008, 07:25:37 PM
All wars are bad, but that doesn't mean that a way is meaningless. The war is here because the insurgents took over Iraq/Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden killed innocent lives. If we wouldn't have gone there then there would be more innocent lives killed. Also, they had killed 2-4,000 US citizens. That's not good, would you look at that and be like... "Ah, it's ok, they're not suffering or anything."

Insuregents didn't take over either of those places because in order for their to be an insurgency there must be an occupying force. What did happen was theocracies took over those places and were subsequently taken over by the larger theocracy of the United States. The insurgents are trying to rid themselves of invaders. If an army from Saudi Arabia invaded the United States, and told you they were liberating you from oppression, and then continuously murdered your countrymen on a daily basis, you would be insurgent as well. Of course, in this argument I only use Iraq as an example because Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT the same thing despite your seeming use of them interchangeably.

EDIT: United states soldiers have killed more innocent Iraqis than were killed in September 11th, but of course with all your flag waving why would you care about a few dead "a-rabs".  And also, before you get on my case, I am not against the troops, I AM against murder...under ANY circumstance.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 06, 2008, 07:41:39 PM
You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Linyx18088 on August 06, 2008, 07:48:52 PM

EDIT: United states soldiers have killed more innocent Iraqis than were killed in September 11th, but of course with all your flag waving why would you care about a few dead "a-rabs".  And also, before you get on my case, I am not against the troops, I AM against murder...under ANY circumstance.


Ah, where did you get that bull?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Guessed on August 06, 2008, 07:50:18 PM
Reality.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Guessed on August 06, 2008, 07:51:18 PM
You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

Well, I'm from Canada, and we burnt down the whitehouse...after partying in it for three days, keep that in mind.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Oscar Wilde on August 06, 2008, 07:53:17 PM
You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

Welp, I'm from Canada, and we burnt down the whitehouse...after partying in it for three days.
The War of 1812; arguably one of the best keggers in human history.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Guessed on August 06, 2008, 07:54:10 PM
You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

Welp, I'm from Canada, and we burnt down the whitehouse...after partying in it for three days.
The War of 1812; arguably one of the best keggers in human history.

Sig'd for lulz
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Lord Wilmore on August 07, 2008, 02:13:26 AM
One could argue the war in Iraq is justifiable if it is successful, as a large, democratic Iraq allied to the west is favourable to our (the wests) interests. There is nothing inherently wrong with acting in your own interest; western governments acting in there own interest is what has led to our prosperity today.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2008, 03:33:33 PM
I'm just glad we didn't democratize North Korea, since they don't have WMD's either.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Lord Wilmore on August 07, 2008, 04:03:02 PM
Pfft, who needs North Korea. There's no point in invading them. They have few resources and their country is of almost no strategic value to the West. Any potential value is more than equalled by S.K. and completely irrelevant next to Japan. Besides, eventually China will be a semi-ally too- everyone's scared of China, but the fact is that Western and Chinese interests are now and for the forseeable future highly similar. Taiwan is a touchy issue, but there's no way either side would allow a full-scake war over it.

China and Russia are all smiles and hugs, but sooner or later they'll come into conflict over something, and the West will sweep in, support China and isolate Russia. At this point, North Korea may have developed a nuclear device capable of damaging your hearing or possibly eyesight within a radius of 6 feet, and may have a firework powerful enough to just about get to another country some of the time; mst of the time if they use photoshop. This will scare Japan, who'll cry a bit, and we'll have to pretend we care some more. Meanwhile, they will go on starving and being shit. The end.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2008, 04:07:53 PM
Another note:
We feed North Korea (read as people will starve and die without free US imports of food). Why are we doing that?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:10:57 PM
Another note:
We feed North Korea (read as people will starve and die without free US imports of food). Why are we doing that?
because we care, just because the leadership is jacked up does not mean the populace needs to suffer
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2008, 04:19:49 PM
Ever think they don't bother to change their leadership because they aren't starving?
Starvation is the greatest motivation to a change in leadership. We are enabling a dictatorship with nuclear weapons that dislikes us. Sorry, but could you explain that to me.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 04:22:26 PM
That's a good, if somewhat callous, point. The world is only ever 3 meals away from revolution, so a few trade embargoes could have solved the Iraq conflict.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:23:05 PM
there is not much the populace can do, he keeps a pretty tight reign over there.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:23:49 PM
That's a good, if somewhat callous, point. The world is only ever 3 meals away from revolution, so a few trade embargoes could have solved the Iraq conflict.
and they worked so well with cuba, not to mention how far we have come with iran
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 04:25:36 PM
Have we stopped all food imports to Iran? Anyway, it's a theocracy, their entire population thinks differently of their government than we do.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2008, 04:46:03 PM
there is not much the populace can do, he keeps a pretty tight reign over there.

Wow. Toss history aside, we have cbarnett97!
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 04:47:24 PM
Fucking SIGGED!
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:48:29 PM
there is not much the populace can do, he keeps a pretty tight reign over there.

Wow. Toss history aside, we have cbarnett97!
yeah because the chinese populace was so successful at overthrowing their oppresive leaders as well as the kurds in iraq
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Guessed on August 07, 2008, 04:50:08 PM
That's a good, if somewhat callous, point. The world is only ever 3 meals away from revolution, so a few trade embargoes could have solved the Iraq conflict.

They DID try embargoes http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/000802.htm (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/000802.htm)
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 04:51:31 PM
The kurds are a vast minority. Learn about Iraq.

Guessed: "Under an agreement already in place, Saddam is allowed to export unlimited quantities of oil and use the money to import food and medicines"
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:52:58 PM
The kurds are a vast minority. Learn about Iraq.

Guessed: "Under an agreement already in place, Saddam is allowed to export unlimited quantities of oil and use the money to import food and medicines"
minority or not how did they fare?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:54:33 PM
and if you want to learn about Iraq then tell me how a sunni minority controlled a shiite majority as well as the kurds
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 04:57:48 PM
They were mustard gassed in their homes, not starved. They were farmers living in the north, while Baghdad was in (from memory) central/South Iraq, so this weak minority would have had to trek through what would immediately become hostile terrain for miles. It's like you're asking British pastafarians to overthrow France. As to your second point, the same way a white minority ruled a black majority in South Africa. Through force, guns and it wasn't worth it for most black people. It was a dictatorship.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
They were mustard gassed in their homes, not starved. They were farmers living in the north, while Baghdad was in (from memory) central/South Iraq, so this weak minority would have had to trek through what would immediately become hostile terrain for miles. It's like you're asking British pastafarians to overthrow France. As to your second point, the same way a white minority ruled a black majority in South Africa. Through force, guns and it wasn't worth it for most black people. It was a dictatorship.
and what did the black minority do in south africa
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 05:01:02 PM
The black majority did sod all, but they weren't being starved. Can't you grasp that? Are you actually 11?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 05:02:38 PM
The black majority did sod all, but they weren't being starved. Can't you grasp that? Are you actually 11?

not being in the presence of a oppressive government they did rebel an for their own nation, now the british were the best guys out there but nowhere near as bad as north korea or saddam iran
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 07, 2008, 05:03:41 PM
You lost me there. Could you say it in English?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2008, 06:13:21 PM
there is not much the populace can do, he keeps a pretty tight reign over there.

Wow. Toss history aside, we have cbarnett97!
yeah because the chinese populace was so successful at overthrowing their oppresive leaders as well as the kurds in iraq

And here I was thinking that the Qing dynasty had ended, as well as the republic of China (on the mainland).
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: General Douchebag on August 08, 2008, 03:22:17 AM
Nope. There's actually no such thing as China.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: adbot on August 09, 2008, 05:25:49 PM
This is a wonderful index. Needs more resources though.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on August 10, 2008, 09:41:27 PM
Thank you. I hope our slashdotters find it helpful.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on October 24, 2008, 06:48:48 PM
I'm bumping this because there needs to be a serious ideological awakening here.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: C-Ray on October 27, 2008, 10:01:15 AM
Read the first two chapters and just not sure I can stomach any more.  This is crap.  Why even bump this thread.  Just try and read the first sentence for RE in chapter 2.  The grammar is so terrible you can't finish the sentence and leave understanding the thought process.  ridiculous.

How many FE'ers buy into this formulation of FET?  Sound off.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on February 15, 2012, 11:11:36 AM
Thanks C-Ray for pointing that out. I admit, grammar is not my strong suite.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Sean on February 15, 2012, 11:16:37 AM
HI NARCBERRY! You probably don't know me but I totally know you. :D
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Thork on February 15, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
Thanks C-Ray for pointing that out. I admit, grammar is not my strong suite.
Dude, I'm sorry. All your friends are ... dead. They didn't survive the cryogenesis. You were gone for a long time. More than 3 years. Life just went on without you. The good news is that it is up to you to repopulate the world with flat earthers. Rooster will donate her womb. She isn't using it.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: The Knowledge on February 15, 2012, 01:10:59 PM
Thanks C-Ray for pointing that out. I admit, grammar is not my strong suite.

I've been told that we are not allowed to necro dead, pointless threads. New ones repeating the same information are to be started in preference.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on February 15, 2012, 01:18:32 PM
Hi, the Knowledge, as the Official Flat-Earth Society Spokesman let me clarify the rules of this board. While members are encouraged to post new threads in favor of necro-posting, Narcberry can do whatever he wants. This exemption applies to all the rules on these boards.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Sean on February 15, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
I heard questioning the official Flat Earth Society spokesman is a bammable offense.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: The Knowledge on February 15, 2012, 01:37:09 PM
I heard questioning the official Flat Earth Society spokesman is a bammable offense.

Is he a mod? Is he an admin? Is he even a basic member? FE Wiki editor, perhaps? No.
He has no special privileges at the time of writing. I could put "Official FES Spokesman" under my picture and it would not make me so.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on February 15, 2012, 01:39:01 PM
I could put "Official FES Spokesman" under my picture and it would not make me so.

I agree.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Sean on February 15, 2012, 01:41:17 PM
Narcberry, may I suggest that you fix your avatar? The image seems to be broked.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on February 15, 2012, 01:42:48 PM
Narcberry, may I suggest that you fix your avatar? The image seems to be broked.

Oh, thanks. I have avatars and sigs disabled for a more enjoyable browsing experience and hadn't noticed.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 16, 2012, 02:54:01 PM
I read a few of the links provided in the op. Complete garbage. Utter uselessness. Weightless water? I hope that is a joke. If the oceans are weightless, then please explain to me the plight of the Indonesian people in 2004. Also explain to me why things get crushed when they go deep underwater. If the oceans are "weightless" then surely water pressure wouldn't exist, would it?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Sean on February 16, 2012, 02:55:38 PM
Weightless water? I hope that is a joke. If the oceans are weightless, then please explain to me the plight of the Indonesian people in 2004. Also explain to me why things get crushed when they go deep underwater. If the oceans are "weightless" then surely water pressure wouldn't exist, would it?

Or the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 16, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
Weightless water? I hope that is a joke. If the oceans are weightless, then please explain to me the plight of the Indonesian people in 2004. Also explain to me why things get crushed when they go deep underwater. If the oceans are "weightless" then surely water pressure wouldn't exist, would it?

Or the Earth is flat.

What? that is out of context and makes no sense.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on February 16, 2012, 03:47:10 PM
The idea that water is weightless is absurd, but that's exactly what RET predicts. FET explains the heaviness of the oceans quite nicely.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 16, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
What??? Round earth theory doesn't predict the weightlessness of anything! Much less water! Everything has mass, and mass is affected by gravity, therefore everything has weight.

I knew that had to be a joke.

**relief**
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on February 16, 2012, 03:58:21 PM
It seems clear that you did not read the thread appropriately titled for this subject before re-hashing it here, clearly against forum rules. I suggest you collect data before making assertions, you look quite silly doing it the other way around.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Pongo on February 16, 2012, 10:20:09 PM
I found myself lost in this guide for hours.  I can find nothing but praise for the content found within the links.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Tausami on February 17, 2012, 05:02:15 AM
I read a few of the links provided in the op. Complete garbage. Utter uselessness. Weightless water? I hope that is a joke. If the oceans are weightless, then please explain to me the plight of the Indonesian people in 2004. Also explain to me why things get crushed when they go deep underwater. If the oceans are "weightless" then surely water pressure wouldn't exist, would it?

Weight =/ mass
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Sean on February 17, 2012, 05:40:25 AM
I'd stickie you if I could
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 17, 2012, 07:08:18 AM
It seems clear that you did not read the thread appropriately titled for this subject before re-hashing it here, clearly against forum rules. I suggest you collect data before making assertions, you look quite silly doing it the other way around.

You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Quote
I found myself lost in this guide for hours.  I can find nothing but praise for the content found within the links.

Thats because you're a brainless idiot.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Rushy on February 17, 2012, 07:56:40 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: ClockTower on February 17, 2012, 08:04:16 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you know that if the Earth was round the oceans would be weightless?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 17, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.

Lunacy. Utter rubbish. Please explain to me how this would be so. Narcberry obviously did an insufficient job of it.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Rushy on February 17, 2012, 09:30:21 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you know that if the Earth was round the oceans would be weightless?

Quote from: Narcberry
Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

On a round earth, gravity free oceans would disperse quite quickly. However, on a flat earth, gravity free oceans aren't a problem at all!

Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 17, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you know that if the Earth was round the oceans would be weightless?

Quote from: Narcberry
Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

On a round earth, gravity free oceans would disperse quite quickly. However, on a flat earth, gravity free oceans aren't a problem at all!

On a round earth....gravity free oceans would disperse. Seriously do you read what you type before posting? ON A ROUND EARTH GRAVITY EXISTS! Therefore, the oceans are not gravity free!!!!

I keep repeating myself. Matter has mass. Whether UA or gravity, the mass would be affected by it. Therefore, nothing is weightless!!! Especially not fucking water!!! (sorry for french, this topic upsets me).
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: ClockTower on February 17, 2012, 09:42:23 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you know that if the Earth was round the oceans would be weightless?

Quote from: Narcberry
Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

On a round earth, gravity free oceans would disperse quite quickly. However, on a flat earth, gravity free oceans aren't a problem at all!
non sequitur. Please do try harder.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Rushy on February 17, 2012, 09:45:58 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you know that if the Earth was round the oceans would be weightless?

Quote from: Narcberry
Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

On a round earth, gravity free oceans would disperse quite quickly. However, on a flat earth, gravity free oceans aren't a problem at all!
non sequitur. Please do try harder.

Please do stop back when you can think of a real rebuttal, or at least a fitting logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: ClockTower on February 17, 2012, 10:06:20 AM
You look quite silly going around saying that the oceans are weightless. Never in my life have I ever heard a stupider, more asinine statement.

Since you seem to be too thick to understand the argument, I'll simplify it for you. If the earth was round oceans would be weightless. If the earth was flat oceans would not be weightless.

Therefore, the earth is flat.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you know that if the Earth was round the oceans would be weightless?

Quote from: Narcberry
Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

On a round earth, gravity free oceans would disperse quite quickly. However, on a flat earth, gravity free oceans aren't a problem at all!
non sequitur. Please do try harder.

Please do stop back when you can think of a real rebuttal, or at least a fitting logical fallacy.
There's nothing to rebut. You'll have to support your conclusion before there's anything to discuss. Don't strain yourself, though, as it's impossible. Thanks for trying though.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: John Davis on June 01, 2016, 10:17:03 AM
Bumping this Quality Thread.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: sokarul on June 01, 2016, 10:20:50 AM
Narcberry is a stupid little kid. Bumping this thread is also stupid.

"My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat." 


Run out of dumb threads to start?
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: John Davis on June 01, 2016, 10:30:32 AM
I, for one, found him an enjoyable break from the often brutal seriousness that flat earth debate often degrades to.
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: Space Cowgirl on June 01, 2016, 11:22:31 AM
Bumping this Quality Thread.

I miss narcberry! Wish he would come back  :)
Title: Re: Narc's FE Guide: Index
Post by: narcberry on October 02, 2016, 04:40:05 PM
Well you're kind of necroposting, but thanks!