The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: god on June 20, 2006, 07:53:27 PM

Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 07:53:27 PM
ok i already proposed this to my new friend "unimportant", but i feel this is worthy of it's own post.

i propose place a bet. and i'm willing to bet anyone who believes in the FE theory.

we will each fly to the tip of africa, or the southern shore of austrailia. from there we will hop on a plane and fly due south untill one of two things happen.....

we will either fly past the south pole and continue onto the other side of the continent.....

or

we will be stopped by the "government" and thier magical geneticly bread penguins.

now whoever loses the bet pays for the combined total of both parties time/expenses/airfare/everything......

if we get arrested by the wall gaurdians....i'd be willing to pay for all your legal fees, and in the event of your death at the hands of penguins....i'll pay your family 1 million dollars.

who's got the stones to take this bet?
Title: Re: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 20, 2006, 08:04:45 PM
This sounds like a great idea, with some maybe-not-immediately-obvious drawbacks.

Quote from: "god"
we will be stopped by the "government" and thier magical geneticly bread penguins.


Maybe you don't realize the seriousness of the situation in which you'd find yourself here.

Quote
if we get arrested by the wall gaurdians....i'd be willing to pay for all your legal fees, and in the event of your death at the hands of penguins....i'll pay your family 1 million dollars.


Legal fees aren't an issue... it would probably never come to that.  And as much as I love my family, I hardly think that I, your typical die-hard flat-Earth believer, who believes that if he attempts this he will necessarily die, would be willing to knowingly sacrifice myself for them to get a million bucks.

Quote
who's got the stones to take this bet?


I would rather ask, "Who's got the sense?"  No flat-Earther who really believes the Earth to be flat would take it.  Either they would succeed and surely die, or never make it far enough and then be left splitting the cost with you for no discernible gain.  Foolish.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 08:14:31 PM
ah yes, but your adventure would not only be funded, but you would then be vindicated and recieve world notoriity as being the one who uncovered the truth.

if you loose you're out the cash

quite frankly, thats the only reason you won't take the bet, and you know it

if you win you don't pay a dime either way, but if i win you'd be owing me thousands. and i don't think you'd have the bankroll to cover that.....i myself do.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 20, 2006, 08:24:51 PM
I'll take the bet, but only as an excuse to go on vacation.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Easter_Bunny on June 20, 2006, 08:33:44 PM
I think some people beat you to it!

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/about.html

http://www.hideawayholidays.com.au/antarct.html

From as little as $900AUD you too can see the great ice wall.

Note the land clearly visible in this picture, http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/gallery-Pages/Image4.html

"Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

Antarctica as a continent does not exist."

From the FAQ.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 20, 2006, 08:42:05 PM
Quote from: "god"
ah yes, but your adventure would not only be funded, but you would then be vindicated and recieve world notoriity as being the one who uncovered the truth.


No, my adventure would not be funded, since presumably you don't give me the money until after I win.

And yay, I love being posthumously vindicated.

Quote
if you loose you're out the cash


... and -- out of time!

Quote
quite frankly, thats the only reason you won't take the bet, and you know it


No, seriously.  The threat of impending doom is far more... threatening.

Quote
if you win you don't pay a dime either way, but if i win you'd be owing me thousands. and i don't think you'd have the bankroll to cover that.....


That's awfully presumptuous of you.

Quote
i myself do.


Great, well, send me a check and we'll talk.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 20, 2006, 08:42:55 PM
I'm getting that's 667.17 U.S. dollars, Cheaper then a trip to Japan from the east coast of the USA. So who's up for a vacation?!
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: god on June 21, 2006, 10:55:51 AM
well i think it kinda goes without saying that the bet is only good for the true "flat earth" believer. sorry no free vacation for you sane people.

the bet is as follows....

we draw up a contract between the 2 of us, the winner of the bet has his expenses paid for by the loser.

simple as that. untill the bet is setteled we'd be splitting the cost 50/50. when we fly due south and see land, you owe me my expenses. we get busted by the ice wall gaurdians (lol) then i guess we both die according to you nut jobs.

so on the same token i guess i'm putting my life at equal risk, so whats the problem....i'm thinking your all just a bunch of wacked out retards, or playing along for reaction, or both (the most likely of the 3 options). so i'm calling you out.

either someone takes the bet, or you are all a bunch of jackasses.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 21, 2006, 12:44:44 PM
Quote from: "god"
so on the same token i guess i'm putting my life at equal risk,


Why the hell should I care that you'll also die?  I don't want to die in the cold harsh wilderness with nobody around but a few trained government killers and somebody who thinks I'm a jackass.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: god on June 21, 2006, 01:03:28 PM
just a risk you'll have to take i guess.

i can't help but think your a jackass, i mean seriously bro, if you honestly believe the earth is flat you've got some issues.

something got your head warped...it's either your childhood, or the bible, or lead paint....something.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 21, 2006, 01:14:04 PM
Quote from: "god"
just a risk you'll have to take i guess.


Why do I have to take it?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Stonicus on June 21, 2006, 01:34:25 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "god"
just a risk you'll have to take i guess.


Why do I have to take it?


To prove your belief.  It's obviously an end goal for you, or you wouldn't participate in these discussions.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: pringles on June 21, 2006, 01:35:22 PM
im siding with Erasmus here, not only does a person have choice in what they believe in, but honestly, who are you to say he has issues, may i ask how you found out so securely that the earth is in fact round, apart from being told?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: god on June 21, 2006, 05:12:51 PM
well lets see....

i've flown in planes and seen the curvature of the earth

i've been to the ocean and saw ships coming in and grow taller as they aproach.

tides

reality

the sheer magnitude of the supposed coverup is not only impossible, but pointless

oh and then there's my uncle who was stationed at the us weather observatory in antartica....(thats the biggie for me)

also there are southern lights, as well as northern lights (that i've seen), which lend to the fact that the earth is round.

then there is the prepondanance of idiocy that i see from the FE'ers which has convinced me without a doubt that anyone believing in such rubbish should be instatutionalised....

thoes are the top 8.....might add more if i feel like wasting more time with you fools.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 21, 2006, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: "god"
well lets see....

i've flown in planes and seen the curvature of the earth

i've been to the ocean and saw ships coming in and grow taller as they aproach.

tides

reality

the sheer magnitude of the supposed coverup is not only impossible, but pointless

oh and then there's my uncle who was stationed at the us weather observatory in antartica....(thats the biggie for me)

also there are southern lights, as well as northern lights (that i've seen), which lend to the fact that the earth is round.

then there is the prepondanance of idiocy that i see from the FE'ers which has convinced me without a doubt that anyone believing in such rubbish should be instatutionalised....

thoes are the top 8.....might add more if i feel like wasting more time with you fools.


1. The windows in planes are fish eyed to make it look that way

2. The Earth is flat that's impossible

3. caused by the earth tilting from all the Dark Energy inside of it

4. conspiracy etc.

5. he's brainwashed

6. penguins
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 21, 2006, 05:21:43 PM
Ok god, think about this from the FE'ers perspective compared to your own.

You, the RE believer, can do one of two things:
1) Die
2) Vacation for free

Not really a compelling reason to go at all, but hey, some people like to gamble.

FE believer possible outcomes:
1) Die
2) Lose lots of money

That's pretty lose-lose. Gambling is risk with the potential of gain; from your proposition, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by the FE'er except, as you claim, posthumous notoriety.

Quote
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/gallery-Pages/Image4.html

Holy crap, you found it! The ice wall! Finally, proof! Thank goodness!
Title: Re: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Doubter on June 21, 2006, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: "god"
ok i already proposed this to my new friend "unimportant", but i feel this is worthy of it's own post.

...

who's got the stones to take this bet?


It would be a silly bet to take as a flat earther.  

My life is worth more than $1,000,000 .  Put $10,000,000 in escrow to be collected by my widow when we do not return, and we might be able to work something out.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Athilies on June 21, 2006, 08:27:19 PM
Strange a true believer would give anything to prove their cause .
It seems you have little faith  in your beliefs .
  Frankly only a coward would claim to be a believer but not be willing to prove it . then there is the problem that it cant be a government conspiracy considering how many different governments there are and none of them can agree on anything let alone pull off the type of secretsy it would require.
Hell the inner earth theories hold more promise
Blind faith is a great thing except it requires you remain blind to truth.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: FungusMcUncle on June 21, 2006, 09:12:15 PM
Exactly, this would seem a perfect cause "worth dying for" yet no Flat Earther is game to take the challenge, it would upset their little (flat) world too much if they found out the world is round (sphere). Maybe once the flat earth exponent was in a plane they would realize there isn't enough material on Earth to manufacture a screen projector big enough to give the "illusion" of the curved horizon, you should try flying sometime....
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 21, 2006, 10:54:07 PM
Is there no flat earther with the patriotic desire and blind devotion to take this bet. I mean seriously, the 300 or so years this debate has been going on, and not one FE is willing to risk everything in honour of the predecessors?

Either all FE are completely un-patriotic or they don't believe their theories blindly and are concerned they will be proved wrong.

What have you got to loose? Death? Personally, I'd rather embrace death as a patriot than life as a fool.

Let's face it, someone has called your bluff. You either go through with it as a patriot, or fold displaying your lack of patriatism or lack of faith in your beliefs. Seriously, if no FE's take this on, how can you expect anyone to believe otherwise?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: TheEngineer on June 21, 2006, 11:03:40 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"

Is there no flat earther with the patriotic desire and blind devotion to take this bet.

What does patriotism have to do with it?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 21, 2006, 11:15:41 PM
Because if you were to uncover the the biggest lie in the history of this planet, you would be hailed a patriot!

I looked up patriot in the dictionary and it pertains to only the defence of a country, not an idea. Perhaps not the best choice of words, but you know what I mean.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 22, 2006, 01:44:23 AM
Quote from: "Athilies"
Strange a true believer would give anything to prove their cause


No offense, but that's stupid.

How about this, any of you: I promise to renounce flat Earthism and believe that the Earth is round, on the condition that you allow me to kill you.  Sound like a good deal?  Didn't think so.

Quote
It seems you have little faith  in your beliefs.


Maybe we're just not as naively idealistic as you see in movies.

Quote
Frankly only a coward would claim to be a believer but not be willing to prove it.


I provided proof already, in a link.  The link is also in the FAQ.  Managed to click on it without government agents jumping through my window and killing me, so I guess I can prove it without risking my life.

Unfortunately the proof was too mathematical for the other members arguing in that thread.  Admittedly, there were some numbers.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 22, 2006, 01:45:20 AM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Is there no flat earther with the patriotic desire and blind devotion


No.  Blind devotion seems to be a characteristic unique to REers.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 05:35:59 AM
Blind devotion is a trait shown by many patriotic men and women that have been hailed over the centuries as heroes. To deny this is to insult the intentions of the men and women that have died in battle before you to maintain the liberties that you currently enjoy. Don't be a fucking pig. Have some respect!!

Back on topic. Blind devotion is what is given by those who hold their beliefs so strongly that dying to prove it would be a privellage, not a chore. Why do you think people put their neck on the line for their country? Because they believe that what they choose is right. If you believe it so strongly, the step up to the plate. If not, back away and admit defeat. It's as simple as that.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 22, 2006, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Blind devotion is a trait shown by many patriotic men and women that have been hailed over the centuries as heroes. To deny this is to insult the intentions of the men and women that have died in battle before you to maintain the liberties that you currently enjoy. Don't be a fucking pig. Have some respect!!


Screw your blindly devoted heroes -- screw them.

Give me any day an ethical, rational, self-critical hero over a blind devotee any day.

And, to label "blindly devoted" the people who died in battle before me to maintain the liberties that I currently enjoy is to reduce them to something less than human.  Don't be a mindless cog in a machine you cannot perceive.  Have some respect!

And watch your language, too.

Quote
Blind devotion is what is given by those who hold their beliefs so strongly that dying to prove it would be a privellage, not a chore.


No.  Blind devotion is the willingness to die for your beliefs if that's what your beliefs require, without really caring to understand why your beliefs require that of you.

Quote
Why do you think people put their neck on the line for their country? Because they believe that what they choose is right. If you believe it so strongly, the step up to the plate. If not, back away and admit defeat. It's as simple as that.


Take your pseudopatriotic prosyletizing elsewhere.  I am unmoved.  Once the liberty of nations is threatened by the increasingly tyrannical pro-round-Earth conspiracy, I'll give your suggestion some thought.  Until then, wipe the foam away from your mouth and ease up on the criminally naive equivocations.

Or, as I suggested before, you can come over to my place and we'll have a fight to the death... if I win, the world is flat; if you win, it's round.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Xargo on June 22, 2006, 10:04:17 AM
Here's the deal: FE'ers are only afraid to get proven wrong.

(And now they will claim that they're not..)
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 03:10:01 PM
Are you sure we aren't more afraid of a gruesome death to no apparent gain?

Because frankly I'd be more afraid of that.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I provided proof already, in a link. The link is also in the FAQ. Managed to click on it without government agents jumping through my window and killing me, so I guess I can prove it without risking my life.

Really?  I must have missed that...  
I can't find said link to a proof in the FAQ, mind reposting it?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: FungusMcUncle on June 22, 2006, 05:01:00 PM
Erasmus - nothing you post in any link here is going to prove squat to anyone. No link, no picture, nothing, stop wasting your time. Your argumentive style is based on fallacies, is annoying and almost invariably fails to address the point asked of you. Are you a politician? My guess would be a 30-40 something academic with no sex life. Get in your blimp and come back with some photos, footage, DNA blueprints for penguins, whatever you think it will take, then, maybe then we might take you a tad more seriously.
I live in Australia and our government is most defiantely NOT capable of sustaining a conspiracy the scale of which you propose. Our government is composed entirely of a bunch of bumbling fools. Idiots. Plebs. Mensch. Detritus. There should be a lot more proof than "mathamatical" ideas that may or may not substantiate your claims but mean nothing to the rest of us. BRING US THE PROOF!
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 05:11:36 PM
Quote
There should be a lot more proof than "mathamatical" ideas that may or may not substantiate your claims but mean nothing to the rest of us. BRING US THE PROOF!

Of course!  The standard for proofs should be dumbed down until the stupidest can understand them...christ...
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 05:31:44 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Screw your blindly devoted heroes -- screw them.
Give me any day an ethical, rational, self-critical hero over a blind devotee any day.
And, to label "blindly devoted" the people who died in battle before me to maintain the liberties that I currently enjoy is to reduce them to something less than human.  Don't be a mindless cog in a machine you cannot perceive.  Have some respect!
And watch your language, too.

Fuck you! That enough language? You have no idea what you are talking about. I on the other hand do have military experience and do know what I'm talking about. It's got nothing to do with not being human. And yes, teamwork is about being a cog in a machine you idiot. Each part must do it's job without question or the entire unit will not work. Trust me, I can perceive this more than you know.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Take your pseudopatriotic prosyletizing elsewhere.  I am unmoved.  Once the liberty of nations is threatened by the increasingly tyrannical pro-round-Earth conspiracy, I'll give your suggestion some thought.  Until then, wipe the foam away from your mouth and ease up on the criminally naive equivocations.

Speak English moron. Using words that others do not understand does not make you smart, it makes you able to read a dictionary and shows your inability to read people and speak with people on a level they related. Theodore Rousevelt (spelling?) was one of the greatest leaders of the world, not because of what he achieved, but because of who he got to work for him. He could speak to anyone on any level. He did not try to patronise them, which he was smart enough to know would only get him further resistance. Get off your high horse!! Why does it take of threat of your country for you to take up on my offer. The threat on a country is usually a threat of the liberties including freedom which are enjoyed by it's occupants. Those who live in a world where their views are not respected by the greater population (eg. Those of the Flat Earth Society) suffer the same seperation and discrimination as those that have been invaded. To proove your point would offer similar benefits to defending your country, after all, defending a country is simply defending what we believe in.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Or, as I suggested before, you can come over to my place and we'll have a fight to the death... if I win, the world is flat; if you win, it's round.
YOU'VE GOT A DEAL. Fuck it, it's woth it. This time you have really bitten off more than you can chew. I hope you're a good fighter, cos I am. What's your address?? Don't even attempt to back out of this one. You have made it nice and clear that this is your choice and something you would be happy to do to solve the issue. If I win, the world is round, and you have to organise to shut down the FES, because you admit it isn't the case. If you win..... well, let's assume that's possible, then the world is Flat and I will gladly admit the fact. Oh yeah..... I have 19 years of combat training and various titles to proove it.... Bring it on!!!
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Screw your blindly devoted heroes -- screw them.
Give me any day an ethical, rational, self-critical hero over a blind devotee any day.
And, to label "blindly devoted" the people who died in battle before me to maintain the liberties that I currently enjoy is to reduce them to something less than human.  Don't be a mindless cog in a machine you cannot perceive.  Have some respect!
And watch your language, too.

Fuck you! That enough language? You have no idea what you are talking about. I on the other hand do have military experience and do know what I'm talking about. It's got nothing to do with not being human. And yes, teamwork is about being a cog in a machine you idiot. Each part must do it's job without question or the entire unit will not work. Trust me, I can perceive this more than you know.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Take your pseudopatriotic prosyletizing elsewhere.  I am unmoved.  Once the liberty of nations is threatened by the increasingly tyrannical pro-round-Earth conspiracy, I'll give your suggestion some thought.  Until then, wipe the foam away from your mouth and ease up on the criminally naive equivocations.

Speak English moron. Using words that others do not understand does not make you smart, it makes you able to read a dictionary and shows your inability to read people and speak with people on a level they related. Theodore Rousevelt (spelling?) was one of the greatest leaders of the world, not because of what he achieved, but because of who he got to work for him. He could speak to anyone on any level. He did not try to patronise them, which he was smart enough to know would only get him further resistance. Get off your high horse!! Why does it take of threat of your country for you to take up on my offer. The threat on a country is usually a threat of the liberties including freedom which are enjoyed by it's occupants. Those who live in a world where their views are not respected by the greater population (eg. Those of the Flat Earth Society) suffer the same seperation and discrimination as those that have been invaded. To proove your point would offer similar benefits to defending your country, after all, defending a country is simply defending what we believe in.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Or, as I suggested before, you can come over to my place and we'll have a fight to the death... if I win, the world is flat; if you win, it's round.
YOU'VE GOT A DEAL. Fuck it, it's woth it. This time you have really bitten off more than you can chew. I hope you're a good fighter, cos I am. What's your address?? Don't even attempt to back out of this one. You have made it nice and clear that this is your choice and something you would be happy to do to solve the issue. If I win, the world is round, and you have to organise to shut down the FES, because you admit it isn't the case. If you win..... well, let's assume that's possible, then the world is Flat and I will gladly admit the fact. Oh yeah..... I have 19 years of combat training and various titles to proove it.... Bring it on!!!


I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 05:52:23 PM
Quote
I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.

Really?  Because I look at it and see a man who has been brainwashed to a point that he believes that being used as a blind, unthinking tool is a virtue, and is enraged that this virtue that he holds so dear is being questioned.

Furthermore, what was your point?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote
I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.

Really?  Because I look at it and see a man who has been brainwashed to a point that he believes that being used as a blind, unthinking, tool is a virtue, and is enraged that this virtue that he holds so dear is being questioned.

Furthermore, what was your point?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:07:58 PM
I'm not sure if it was a compliment or an insult.
I'm guessing with the sarcasm post it was an insult.

Funny thing is, your right. I'm not a genius, I don't pretend to be. I'm not particularly that worried if the earth is flat or round. I just can't stand people that spurt out bullshit pretending it's true. More so, I just don't back down. Either way, he has laid the challenge, I have accepted. I'm waiting....
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 06:15:32 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
I'm not sure if it was a compliment or an insult.
I'm guessing with the sarcasm post it was an insult.

Funny thing is, your right. I'm not a genius, I don't pretend to be. I'm not particularly that worried if the earth is flat or round. I just can't stand people that spurt out bullshit pretending it's true. More so, I just don't back down. Either way, he has laid the challenge, I have accepted. I'm waiting....


with all due respect, and I do commend your effort to disprove the FE theory, talking about how you would destroy someone in a fist fight over the internet doesn't gain you much credibility; and will probably just lead to ad hominem attacks (or simply attacking the arguer, and not the argument, if you aren't familar with the term)

EDIT: typo lolz
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: "Desu"
6strings wrote:
Quote:
I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.

Really? Because I look at it and see a man who has been brainwashed to a point that he believes that being used as a blind, unthinking, tool is a virtue, and is enraged that this virtue that he holds so dear is being questioned.

Furthermore, what was your point?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

That wasn't sarcasm...even according to the wikipedia link, as there was no over-emphasis.  If you were using sarcasm interchangeably with ironic, then that would indicate that you are saying the direct antithesis of what you mean...which would seem to indicate that you see not a man with heart, but a genius and a scientist.  Unless, of course, you're using some form of sarcasm of which I am unawares, in which case feel free to enlighten me.

Quote
Funny thing is, your right.

That's not funny at all.

Quote
I'm not a genius, I don't pretend to be.

Duly noted.

Quote
I'm not particularly that worried if the earth is flat or round. I just can't stand people that spurt out bullshit pretending it's true.

If you think that's the case, then I think you've missed most of the point of this site.

Quote

 More so, I just don't back down. Either way, he has laid the challenge, I have accepted. I'm waiting....

You realize that he could just lie, right?  Do you further realize the intense irony with which the challenge was issued?  In either case, it would be wisest of you to go against your grain and simply "back down".
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 06:26:26 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote from: "Desu"
6strings wrote:
Quote:
I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.

Really? Because I look at it and see a man who has been brainwashed to a point that he believes that being used as a blind, unthinking, tool is a virtue, and is enraged that this virtue that he holds so dear is being questioned.

Furthermore, what was your point?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

That wasn't sarcasm...even according to the wikipedia link, as there was no over-emphasis.  If you were using sarcasm interchangeably with ironic, then that would indicate that you are saying the direct antithesis of what you mean...which would seem to indicate that you see not a man with heart, but a genius and a scientist.  Unless, of course, you're using some form of sarcasm of which I am unawares, in which case feel free to enlighten me.

Quote
Funny thing is, your right.

That's not funny at all.

Quote
I'm not a genius, I don't pretend to be.

Duly noted.

Quote
I'm not particularly that worried if the earth is flat or round. I just can't stand people that spurt out bullshit pretending it's true.

If you think that's the case, then I think you've missed most of the point of this site.

Quote

 More so, I just don't back down. Either way, he has laid the challenge, I have accepted. I'm waiting....

You realize that he could just lie, right?  Do you further realize the intense irony with which the challenge was issued?  In either case, it would be wisest of you to go against your grain and simply "back down".



I was mocking his blind patriotism, "INTERNET BADASS" attitude and additionally his apparently inapt language skills. so perhaps sarcasm wasn't the best choice or words, but it should be blatantly obvious I was mocking him none the less
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:27:33 PM
Quote from: "Desu"
with all due respect, and I do commend your effort to disprove the FE theory, talking about how you would destroy someone in a fist fight over the internet doesn't gain you much credibility; and will probably just lead to ad hominem attacks (or simply attacking the arguer, and not the agrument, if you aren't familar with the term)
You're probably right. That's why I did not lay such a challenge, but since the challenge has been laid, I figured I would take up on it.

Quote from: "6strings"
If you think that's the case, then I think you've missed most of the point of this site.
Yes and no. Have a quick look at my first post. You'll notice that I came in with an open mind and willingness to see both sides. After a few posts and more reading, I came into nothing but a bunch of idiots. Had I come across people some physical evidence and a willingness to be diplomatic, I would have given the same respect, but since I was given none, I will give none in return. So to answer your comment, no, my original idea was as per the purpose of this site, but now, I've made up my mind and am just enjoying getting under the skin of the idiot who has challenged me.

Quote from: "6strings"
You realize that he could just lie, right?  Do you further realize the intense irony with which the challenge was issued?  In either case, it would be wisest of you to go against your grain and simply "back down".
Once again, you are right. He could just lie, but that would make him a coward AND an idiot. (he already has the idiot part down pat). The irony is astounding! That of the fact that he would not be willing to die to proove his point scientifically, but is more than willing to die in a fist fight that will ultimately prove nothing but defeat of the opinions of the two combatants. As mentioned, I could back down, but there inlies the problem of human stupbourness. Unfortunately, I am just like my opponents here on this site. I suffer from the willingness to follow my beliefs regardless how strong the evidence put before me. While in there case, they refuse to accept compelling evidence that the world is a sphere, and in the case of this poor sole, is willing to put his life on the line to make his point, my situation is much the same. I do not believe in backing down from a challenge once it has been accepted, and although presented with compelling arguments why backing down is a good idea, I will not.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 06:38:15 PM
Quote from: "Desu"
I was mocking his blind patriotism, "INTERNET BADASS" attitude and additionally his apparently inapt language skills. so perhaps sarcasm wasn't the best choice or words, but it should be blatantly obvious I was mocking him none the less

In all honesty, I don't do the whole internet forum thing often, so I have no idea, which is why that probably went over my head.  No idea what that would be called though...don't think it was sarcasm in any case.  Apologies.

Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "6strings"
If you think that's the case, then I think you've missed most of the point of this site.
Yes and no. Have a quick look at my first post. You'll notice that I came in with an open mind and willingness to see both sides. After a few posts and more reading, I came into nothing but a bunch of idiots. Had I come across people some physical evidence and a willingness to be diplomatic, I would have given the same respect, but since I was given none, I will give none in return. So to answer your comment, no, my original idea was as per the purpose of this site, but now, I've made up my mind and am just enjoying getting under the skin of the idiot who has challenged me.

I don't need to read your post; it's clear to me that you have, in point of fact, missed the point of this site.

Quote
Once again, you are right. He could just lie, but that would make him a coward AND an idiot. (he already has the idiot part down pat). The irony is astounding! That of the fact that he would not be willing to die to proove his point scientifically, but is more than willing to die in a fist fight that will ultimately prove nothing but defeat of the opinions of the two combatants. As mentioned, I could back down, but there inlies the problem of human stupbourness. Unfortunately, I am just like my opponents here on this site. I suffer from the willingness to follow my beliefs regardless how strong the evidence put before me. While in there case, they refuse to accept compelling evidence that the world is a sphere, and in the case of this poor sole, is willing to put his life on the line to make his point, my situation is much the same. I do not believe in backing down from a challenge once it has been accepted, and although presented with compelling arguments why backing down is a good idea, I will not.

The homonyms; they burn!
In all seriousness, look at the scenario; you'd call him a coward if he does anything but fight you to the death (over a challenge that was offered laden with irony, nontheless, but I digress) so assuming he will not fight you, he will be branded a coward no matter what he does, lying, however, gets you to, I don't know, go down to the old wharf and get knifed by Scabby, the sea-hand who's suffering from ocean madness, or walk into any other, equally amusing, scenario.

The real reason that getting into such a huff about this challenge is stupid is simply that the challenge didn't even seem to be offered in ernest, but offered ironically to illustrate the idiocy of the scenario.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote from: "Desu"
I was mocking his blind patriotism, "INTERNET BADASS" attitude and additionally his apparently inapt language skills. so perhaps sarcasm wasn't the best choice or words, but it should be blatantly obvious I was mocking him none the less

In all honesty, I don't do the whole internet forum thing often, so I have no idea, which is why that probably went over my head.  No idea what that would be called though...don't think it was sarcasm in any case.  Apologies.

don't worry about it, the internet is, after all, Serious business.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:50:41 PM
Quote from: "6strings"


Quote from: "Desu"
I was mocking his blind patriotism, "INTERNET BADASS" attitude and additionally his apparently inapt language skills. so perhaps sarcasm wasn't the best choice or words, but it should be blatantly obvious I was mocking him none the less
I like the way you can base a persons entire language skills on how they type on a forum when trying to type quickly to get the point across. I had no idea I was being audited. Once again, do not presume to know my skills, excellent or poor, either way, this is no place to pass effective judgement. My personality on the other hand, go for it, but before labelling me as a "INTERNET BADASS", perhaps you should realise that I did not lay threats on anyone, I simple accepted ones that were laid on me.


Quote from: "6strings"
I don't need to read your post; it's clear to me that you have, in point of fact, missed the point of this site.
And there inlies the problem. You are willing to lable me before getting the facts.

Quote from: "6strings"
In all seriousness, look at the scenario; you'd call him a coward if he does anything but fight you to the death (over a challenge that was offered laden with irony, nontheless, but I digress) so assuming he will not fight you, he will be branded a coward no matter what he does, lying, however, gets you to, I don't know, go down to the old wharf and get knifed by Scabby, the sea-hand who's suffering from ocean madness, or walk into any other, equally amusing, scenario.

The real reason that getting into such a huff about this challenge is stupid is simply that the challenge didn't even seem to be offered in ernest, but offered ironically to illustrate the idiocy of the scenario.
Indeed I see your point, but the fact still remains that one should never bluff about anything unless they are prepared to have their bluff called, regardless how amusing the irony.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: "Desu
don't worry about it, the internet is, after all, Serious business.
I got the sarcasm in that one.  :lol: See here is where it gets interesting. You two are assuming that when I take up on this challenge, that I'm for real. Maybe I am, or maybe I've just been a puppeteer seeing how long I can pull your strings...
Who knows, I could be deadly serious, or my willingness to fight could be just as empty as his threat.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 22, 2006, 06:58:14 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
My willingness to fight could be just as empty as his threat.


I really hope it is. Otherwise you've just gone and made a complete ass of yourself
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 07:01:18 PM
Quote
My personality on the other hand, go for it, but before labelling me as a "INTERNET BADASS", perhaps you should realise that I did not lay threats on anyone, I simple accepted ones that were laid on me.

You would have a valid point, but it has already been pointed out that said challenge was ironic in nature, but yet you continue to persue it.

About your language skills, people judge other people all the time consciencely or otherwise, a large basis for this judgement would be the person's dialect and accent, and also their choice of words. So it's only natural on the internet that people will judge you based on your grammatical and spelling skills and mannerisms. Granted your errors are usually subtle in nature (using 'there' when 'their' is needed comes to mind), I hyperbolized them for the sake of making a sardonic hyperbole.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
And there inlies the problem. You are willing to lable me before getting the facts.

I would normally chalk it up to a typo, but you did it twice so I feel obligated to point out the correct term is "therein lies" not "there inlies".

Also, to Desu and 6strings:
Quote
I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.

I'd classify that as sardonic hyperbole.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:14:46 PM
Quote from: "Desu"
You would have a valid point, but it has already been pointed out that said challenge was ironic in nature, but yet you continue to persue it.
Yeah true, as previously stated, you're right, I do believe it was a bluff (or ironic amusement, call it what you want), but as I have also stated, one should not bluff unless they are prepared to have their bluff called.

Quote from: "Desu"
About your language skills, people judge other people all the time consciencely or otherwise, a large basis for this judgement would be the person's dialect and accent, and also their choice of words. So it's only natural on the internet that people will judge you based on your grammatical and spelling skills and mannerisms. Granted your errors are usually subtle in nature (using 'there' when 'their' is needed comes to mind), I hyperbolized them for the sake of making a, for lack of a better word, sarcastic/ironic/approiate literary term, statment.

Fair point. I'll give you that one.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Also, to Desu and 6strings:
Quote
I look at this post and I don't see a scientist or an intellectual, I see a man with a heart.

I'd classify that as sardonic hyperbole.


Thanks for clearing that up, previous post edited accordingly.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:19:53 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
I'd classify that as sardonic hyperbole.
Well, don't you feel special now that you got to use a big word. Of course it would have just been easier to say "critical exaggeration". (I can use a dictionary too)
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:27:20 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
I'd classify that as sardonic hyperbole.
Well, don't you feel special now that you got to use a big word. Of course it would have just been easier to say "critical exaggeration". (I can use a dictionary too)

You'll be interested to know:
1) I didn't use a dictionary.
2) "Critical Exaggeration" is 3 letters longer than "Sardonic Hyperbole", and doesn't really mean the same thing.

That's the great thing about communication; you can use basic, general purpose words and get the idea accross, or you can take advantage of the depth of the language and really let someone know what is in your head.

A thesaurus might tell you "Happy" and "Euphoric" are the same thing, but the former is a mallet while the latter is an ice pick. To dumb down the language is to dumb down the message.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:33:11 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
That's the great thing about communication; you can use basic, general purpose words and get the idea accross, or you can take advantage of the depth of the language and really let someone know what is in your head.

That's the funny thing about this post, you just contradicted yourself. Communication is a two way street. Send/Receive. If the person at the other end doesn't understand what you are talking about, it's not communication, it just making noise. You could type in chinese for I care, it wouldn't make a difference. Why is it that some people (usually those that are try-hard "Intellectuals") think that using big words is good communication? Good communication is "really letting someone know what is in your head" which doesn't work if they don't understand what you are saying. Good communicators don't use big words, they modify their language based on their audience.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 07:36:36 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
That's the great thing about communication; you can use basic, general purpose words and get the idea accross, or you can take advantage of the depth of the language and really let someone know what is in your head.

That's the funny thing about this post, you just contradicted yourself. Communication is a two way street. Send/Receive. If the person at the other end doesn't understand what you are talking about, it's not communication, it just making noise. You could type in chinese for I care, it wouldn't make a difference. Why is it that some people (usually those that are try-hard "Intellectuals") think that using big words is good communication? Good communication is "really letting someone know what is in your head" which doesn't work if they don't understand what you are saying. Good communicators don't use big words, they modify their language based on their audience.

he acutally does have a point here, even if its not entirely applicable in this situation.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
That's the great thing about communication; you can use basic, general purpose words and get the idea accross, or you can take advantage of the depth of the language and really let someone know what is in your head.

That's the funny thing about this post, you just contradicted yourself. Communication is a two way street. Send/Receive. If the person at the other end doesn't understand what you are talking about, it's not communication, it just making noise.

You seem to be of the opinion that there are multiple levels of language, that meaning and context change to suit your proficiency. I don't believe that. Language is what it is, and just because you choose to limit your use of it does not change the substance of it.

I've always looked at language as being similar to mathematics, and here is another example of a situation where that comparison applies. Math can be rudimentary - addition, subtraction, multiplication, division - or complex - calculus, trigonometry, everything. Just because you limit yourself to addition, however, doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say cos(0) = 1. And just because you don't care about math doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to claim 2+2=5.

You can't dumb down math to facilitate addition, and you can't dumb down language to facilitate communication. You can choose to stick to the easy stuff, but you're going to have a hard time explaining differential equations if you only use addition.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 08:07:31 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
You seem to be of the opinion that there are multiple levels of language, that meaning and context change to suit your proficiency. I don't believe that. Language is what it is, and just because you choose to limit your use of it does not change the substance of it.

I've always looked at language as being similar to mathematics, and here is another example of a situation where that comparison applies. Math can be rudimentary - addition, subtraction, multiplication, division - or complex - calculus, trigonometry, everything. Just because you limit yourself to addition, however, doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say cos(0) = 1. And just because you don't care about math doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to claim 2+2=5.

You can't dumb down math to facilitate addition, and you can't dumb down language to facilitate communication. You can choose to stick to the easy stuff, but you're going to have a hard time explaining differential equations if you only use addition.
Mate, you're either taking the piss, or you are a wanker. If you can't dumb down language to suit your audience, why do we not talk like you have been to our children in Kindy? They wouldn't understand and would therefore learn nothing. The very fact that you fail to see this proves your inability to communicate. Communication is not about how well you can show you know the language, it's about how well you can use it. It's great knowing what a mathematical theory is, but if you don't know how to apply it to a given scenario in real life, it doesn't mean shit. Watch a speach by any successful politician or saleman, they do not use big words. They use the words that get the point across. If they are dealing with one demographic of people, they will use one type of language, whereas they would change to a different type of language to suit and audience of a different demographic. You can sit there and cry about the fact that people don't have a grasp of the language and look at yourself in your own admiration, but the fact of the matter is, that's not communication, that's just vocabulary. Communication is getting the point across, and if you can't do that, the words are useless. Once again, it would be like me going to China, speaking english and then blaming them for not understanding what I'm saying. Language may very well be much like mathematics, but communication certainly is not. Communication is about interpersonal relationship, not about a text book list of words and their meanings.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 08:23:30 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Watch a speach by any successful politician or saleman, they do not use big words. They use the words that get the point across.

No, the best of them use the right words. A salesman doesn't knock on your door and say "ME SALESMAN YOU BUY DICTIONARY YOU LEARN BIG WORD BE SMART WIN LADY", even though that would certainly "get the point across".

Quote
If they are dealing with one demographic of people, they will use one type of language, whereas they would change to a different type of language to suit and audience of a different demographic.

This kind of behavior sounds awfully patronizing.

Quote
You can sit there and cry about the fact that people don't have a grasp of the language and look at yourself in your own admiration, but the fact of the matter is, that's not communication, that's just vocabulary. Communication is getting the point across, and if you can't do that, the words are useless.

Look in this very thread a few pages back; Desu was making fun of you, but between he and 6strings, could not come up with the proper way of "Getting the point across" about exactly what literary device he had used. Is this where your "big words aren't communication" theory comes in? it just so happened that the idea they were trying to express was best communicated by a "big word". Sure there are lots of cases where a small word will do just fine, but there are just as many cases where a "bigger" word is better. If you wanted to tell someone about that supremely blissful rush you're feeling, sure "happy" would suffice. But is that really what you're trying to tell them? Wouldn't euphoric be better?

This isn't "I'm disinclined to aqcuiesce" means "I don't wanna", this is Sardonic Hyperbole when nothing else adequately describes the idea.

I'm about to lose power (hell of a storm going on), so that's going to be it.

Remember, though; it's not embellishment, it's just refusing to dilute.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 08:29:36 PM
Quote
I'm about to lose power (hell of a storm going on), so that's going to be it.

there looks to be a storm fast approacing my area, too.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 08:50:03 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
No, the best of them use the right words. A salesman doesn't knock on your door and say "ME SALESMAN YOU BUY DICTIONARY YOU LEARN BIG WORD BE SMART WIN LADY", even though that would certainly "get the point across".

No it wouldn't because the person would be concentrating on their lack of verbal skills instead of what they are selling. A good salesman will use a language according to the person they are trying to sell to. If they are in an upper class area, they will use a more complex language to suit the generally more educated demographic of the occupants. If in a lower class area, they will obviously do the opposite. Trust me, I used to be a salesman, and quite a good one at that, and have done HEAPS of study in communication methods. (not language.... communication)

Quote from: "Unimportant"
This kind of behavior sounds awfully patronizing.
People relate to those similar to themselves better than those of a different demographic. Been proven time and time again. By speaking someones language, you are not patronising them, in fact, using bigger words on someone who does not understand them would do that. You are simply "fitting in".

Quote from: "Unimportant"
Look in this very thread a few pages back; Desu was making fun of you, but between he and 6strings, could not come up with the proper way of "Getting the point across" about exactly what literary device he had used. Is this where your "big words aren't communication" theory comes in? it just so happened that the idea they were trying to express was best communicated by a "big word". Sure there are lots of cases where a small word will do just fine, but there are just as many cases where a "bigger" word is better. If you wanted to tell someone about that supremely blissful rush you're feeling, sure "happy" would suffice. But is that really what you're trying to tell them? Wouldn't euphoric be better?

Yes, only if the person at the other end understood. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, communication requires both ends of the conversation to understand. If they don't BOTH understand, communication does not occur, regardless of how much you want it to.

Quote from: "Unimportant"
This isn't "I'm disinclined to aqcuiesce" means "I don't wanna", this is Sardonic Hyperbole when nothing else adequately describes the idea.
There is a lot of other things that explain it, you just have to use your brain instead of a dictionary.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 23, 2006, 02:10:29 PM
Quote
There is a lot of other things that explain it, you just have to use your brain instead of a dictionary.

I think I'm starting to see your point about communication having to cater to the lowest common denominator. Tell me, is there a better way I could have said:
Quote from: "Unimportant"

1) I didn't use a dictionary.

?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 04:26:02 AM
lols on this thread. Stop throwing pies at eachother.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: jiffy on June 24, 2006, 07:56:02 AM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote
There is a lot of other things that explain it, you just have to use your brain instead of a dictionary.

I think I'm starting to see your point about communication having to cater to the lowest common denominator. Tell me, is there a better way I could have said:
Quote from: "Unimportant"

1) I didn't use a dictionary.

?

But you did. At some stage, you were taught the word, either by looking it up in a written dictionary or by a verbal source. Either way, you are just quoting a dictionary, not actually using your brain to think of the words that would be most appropriate for that particular scenario.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Unimportant on June 24, 2006, 08:49:55 AM
Quote
But you did. At some stage, you were taught the word, either by looking it up in a written dictionary or by a verbal source. Either way, you are just quoting a dictionary, not actually using your brain to think of the words that would be most appropriate for that particular scenario.

How, pray tell, did you learn to speak passable English without using either the dictionary or "verbal sources"?
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Indigo on June 25, 2006, 12:26:57 PM
Ok, how about THIS for a bet. With commercial flights into space available in the near future,(5, 10, 15, maybe 20 years is predicted) why dont you do the same thing, (Splitting the costs for the trip) except into space? Surely the government wouldn't just take you up in a lil ship then kill you. And, like before, the loser would pay all costs for the tirp.
Title: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT
Post by: Erasmus on June 25, 2006, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: "Indigo"
Ok, how about THIS for a bet. With commercial flights into space available in the near future,(5, 10, 15, maybe 20 years is predicted) why dont you do the same thing, (Splitting the costs for the trip) except into space? Surely the government wouldn't just take you up in a lil ship then kill you. And, like before, the loser would pay all costs for the tirp.


They wouldn't kill you, no, but they might fake the whole thing.  Wouldn't be new for them.

They might also have agents start up fake private companies to run these fake flights, so you can't tell it's the government doing the faking.  Fakers.