The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: AnonConda on January 07, 2012, 04:07:01 AM

Title: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 07, 2012, 04:07:01 AM
All photos are fake. Anything I can't see with my own eyes I disregard.

Now prove to me:
Celestial gears (or any viable mechanism for movement of celestial bodies)
Bendy light theory
Glowing moon organisms

This is to illustrate that if you apply first hand observation as your criteria for evidence across both theories you will see that FET can't explain anything.

Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

So, applying this criteria to all scientific theories pretty much destroys science.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Hazbollah on January 07, 2012, 05:22:30 AM
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: jraffield1 on January 07, 2012, 07:06:02 PM
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.

Buts its perfectly fine to say that all photos proving a round Earth are false?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 07, 2012, 07:10:57 PM
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.

Buts its perfectly fine to say that all photos proving a round Earth are false?

No they are either misleading or false, not just false... Lol, what a joke.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 08, 2012, 04:45:39 AM
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: EireEngineer on January 08, 2012, 05:42:06 AM
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.
Including ones you take yourself?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on January 08, 2012, 05:54:18 AM
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
This is FES; people here specialise in derailing threads. However you must admit it is a pretty big step in your argument to say all photos are fake and that anything you can't see with your own eyes you disregard. What about gravity? Wind?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 08, 2012, 06:02:42 AM
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
This is FES; people here specialise in derailing threads. However you must admit it is a pretty big step in your argument to say all photos are fake and that anything you can't see with your own eyes you disregard. What about gravity? Wind?
As I understand it, most of the FE scientists here do not believe in the theory of gravitation, and wind can indeed be experienced directly, more or less.
Still. You are missing the point.
Forget what I said about photos, no one is going to provide photos of invisible celestial gears, bendy light, or luminescent moon creatures. I was making point about how if the FE community was consistent in the way they apply their skepticism, then the fore-mentioned celestial gears etc wouldn't be a part of their theory.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on January 08, 2012, 06:10:06 AM
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
This is FES; people here specialise in derailing threads. However you must admit it is a pretty big step in your argument to say all photos are fake and that anything you can't see with your own eyes you disregard. What about gravity? Wind?
As I understand it, most of the FE scientists here do not believe in the theory of gravitation, and wind can indeed be experienced directly, more or less.
Still. You are missing the point.
Forget what I said about photos, no one is going to provide photos of invisible celestial gears, bendy light, or luminescent moon creatures. I was making point about how if the FE community was consistent in the way they apply their skepticism, then the fore-mentioned celestial gears etc wouldn't be a part of their theory.
Sorry I won't forget the photos just yet.  The main reason they are not accepted is because the majority of them come from the conspiracy and its direct sources, e.g. NASA.  These are the very people who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes so of course they can't be trusted.

Now as for the FE community being inconsistent in their skepticism, well I personally take offense.  There may be inconsistency in how some aspects of FE theory are applied but our overall skepticism is an unwavering, united front. Perhaps you meant the former?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 08:43:26 AM
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 08, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence)
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 09:09:02 AM
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence)

Hardly. It was not known that electrons existed until the Crookes experiment, and after they were found it was generally believed that elements consisted of a jello-type thing with electrons sitting around inside of it. While there was a very simplistic atomic theory before the Crookes experiment, it was based mainly as an explanation of chemical reactions (hey look, evidence by necessity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 08, 2012, 09:20:29 AM
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence)

Hardly. It was not known that electrons existed until the Crookes experiment, and after they were found it was generally believed that elements consisted of a jello-type thing with electrons sitting around inside of it. While there was a very simplistic atomic theory before the Crookes experiment, it was based mainly as an explanation of chemical reactions (hey look, evidence by necessity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
Again: you incorrectly claimed that AnonConda was wrong in saying that atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom.

By the way, J. J. Thomson in 1897 first proposed the existence of the electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson)
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 09:27:57 AM
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence)

Hardly. It was not known that electrons existed until the Crookes experiment, and after they were found it was generally believed that elements consisted of a jello-type thing with electrons sitting around inside of it. While there was a very simplistic atomic theory before the Crookes experiment, it was based mainly as an explanation of chemical reactions (hey look, evidence by necessity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
Again: you incorrectly claimed that AnonConda was wrong in saying that atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom.

By the way, J. J. Thomson in 1897 first proposed the existence of the electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson)

Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 08, 2012, 09:39:17 AM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 10:00:30 AM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons. However, he didn't know what he was looking at and hypothesized it to be a new state of matter. Then Arthur Schustur made some improvements to the design, which allowed him to determine the charge to mass ratio of the substance. Then, Thompson figured out what it was. Schustur's improvement turned the apparatus from:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Crookes_tube-in_use-lateral_view-standing_cross_prPNr%C2%B011.jpg/280px-Crookes_tube-in_use-lateral_view-standing_cross_prPNr%C2%B011.jpg)

to

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Cyclotron_motion_wider_view.jpg/220px-Cyclotron_motion_wider_view.jpg)
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 08, 2012, 10:04:18 AM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 10:15:03 AM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 08, 2012, 11:31:52 AM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.
Then you're inconsistent. For shame!
Also isn't it hate speech to give 'credit' when 'blame' is due for the Holocaust?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 08, 2012, 11:37:57 AM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

HAHAHA lol do you even know your history?  The argument could be made that Ferdinand should not have entered Serbia and that he was asking for trouble, but its just as easy to blame the Serbians, and even then the most blame should be placed on the Austrians for demanding military access to a foreign nation after his murder.  That is simply an unreasonable request, one they knew would lead to war.  So in all honesty it was the Austrian government post Ferdinand that was to blame for WW1 not the Serbians let alone one guy who made a poor decision to visit a location he was unpopular in. 

You are correct in assuming that WW1 did cause WW2, but the blame firmly lays with the french in this case.  They refused to accept Wilson's 14 points one of which was that retribution payments should be extremely mild or even none existent.  Instead Germany got slammed with huge fines that it printed money to pay, which resulted in hyper inflation and an upset public willing to elect/support a radical, and that radical was Hitler.

But even considering that its a huge stretch to blame the french for the holocaust, as it was Hitlers decision to start murdering Jews.  It was not an attempt to get back at the french for what they had done.  So there is no causation linked to the french, they only helped to enable such a situation.

So no poor Franz Ferdinand did not cause the holocaust. 

You do not arrest a person who sells kitchen knives because someone used his knife to stab someone.  Everyone's decisions are their own.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 12:08:43 PM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

HAHAHA lol do you even know your history?  The argument could be made that Ferdinand should not have entered Serbia and that he was asking for trouble, but its just as easy to blame the Serbians, and even then the most blame should be placed on the Austrians for demanding military access to a foreign nation after his murder.  That is simply an unreasonable request, one they knew would lead to war.  So in all honesty it was the Austrian government post Ferdinand that was to blame for WW1 not the Serbians let alone one guy who made a poor decision to visit a location he was unpopular in. 

You are correct in assuming that WW1 did cause WW2, but the blame firmly lays with the french in this case.  They refused to accept Wilson's 14 points one of which was that retribution payments should be extremely mild or even none existent.  Instead Germany got slammed with huge fines that it printed money to pay, which resulted in hyper inflation and an upset public willing to elect/support a radical, and that radical was Hitler.

But even considering that its a huge stretch to blame the french for the holocaust, as it was Hitlers decision to start murdering Jews.  It was not an attempt to get back at the french for what they had done.  So there is no causation linked to the french, they only helped to enable such a situation.

So no poor Franz Ferdinand did not cause the holocaust. 

You do not arrest a person who sells kitchen knives because someone used his knife to stab someone.  Everyone's decisions are their own.

I suppose I meant his assassin, but that was more of a filler line than anything and I wasn't expecting it to derail the thread. I don't know why.

And really, this is all irrelevant. Crookes discovered the electron, and Dalton figured out what it was, just like Columbus discovered America and Amerigo Vespucci figured out what it was.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 08, 2012, 12:16:52 PM
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

HAHAHA lol do you even know your history?  The argument could be made that Ferdinand should not have entered Serbia and that he was asking for trouble, but its just as easy to blame the Serbians, and even then the most blame should be placed on the Austrians for demanding military access to a foreign nation after his murder.  That is simply an unreasonable request, one they knew would lead to war.  So in all honesty it was the Austrian government post Ferdinand that was to blame for WW1 not the Serbians let alone one guy who made a poor decision to visit a location he was unpopular in. 

You are correct in assuming that WW1 did cause WW2, but the blame firmly lays with the french in this case.  They refused to accept Wilson's 14 points one of which was that retribution payments should be extremely mild or even none existent.  Instead Germany got slammed with huge fines that it printed money to pay, which resulted in hyper inflation and an upset public willing to elect/support a radical, and that radical was Hitler.

But even considering that its a huge stretch to blame the french for the holocaust, as it was Hitlers decision to start murdering Jews.  It was not an attempt to get back at the french for what they had done.  So there is no causation linked to the french, they only helped to enable such a situation.

So no poor Franz Ferdinand did not cause the holocaust. 

You do not arrest a person who sells kitchen knives because someone used his knife to stab someone.  Everyone's decisions are their own.

I suppose I meant his assassin, but that was more of a filler line than anything and I wasn't expecting it to derail the thread. I don't know why.

And really, this is all irrelevant. Crookes discovered the electron, and Dalton figured out what it was, just like Columbus discovered America and Amerigo Vespucci figured out what it was.

Sorry i just hate it when people spew bullshit regarding history.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 09, 2012, 05:06:33 AM
Maybe we can get the discussion back on track now.

The points I am trying to make are:

1. Evidence does not need to be through direct observation:
I don't need to be alive for millions of years to watch evolution take its course; when we have comparative anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, fossils, and genetics that each produce the same tree of ancestry. Clearly, even with this powerful evidence you still have creationists who claim "no one has seen evolution." This see it to believe it idea, goes against science and logic, and would render any crime without eye witnesses unsolvable.

2. I pointed to the flaw in using direct observation as the criteria for evidence:
That if this was adhered to by the flat earth society, then there would be no talk of celestial gears, bendy light, or glowing moon critters as these have not been directly observed by anyone.

P.S. And I wish to apologize to those in the FES who do no use this criteria for evidence for generalizing and lumping you in with them. I will have a separate topic for you in the near future.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 08:16:25 AM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: markjo on January 09, 2012, 08:27:16 AM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 10:20:53 AM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?
Do you, Rushy. observe the effects of the shrimp or just your fantasy of what you hope the effects are?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 09, 2012, 10:41:03 AM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Stop pretending to be an FEer, you yelled at them so much calling them all trolls that no one is ever going to believe you just switched over out of the blue. 
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on January 09, 2012, 11:19:23 AM
It wasn't just out of the blue.  I personally observed a couple of wobbles.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Around And About on January 09, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Oh my goodness, TEG is reborn!
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 09, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
It wasn't just out of the blue.  I personally observed a couple of wobbles.

He grew increasingly sarcastic, then went entirely troll.  That is not a wobble. 

On december 22nd he made a comment that he thought 50 percent of the fEers were just one person with alts.  And byt eh 25th he was suddenly an fer.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on January 09, 2012, 12:10:19 PM
The use of the word 'troll' automatically exempts your post from consideration in any discussion on consistency.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: zarg on January 09, 2012, 12:48:47 PM
automatically exempts your post from consideration

You know, you folks seem to have an inordinate amount of criteria which lead to this decision.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on January 09, 2012, 12:57:43 PM
Likewise, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: zarg on January 09, 2012, 01:04:39 PM
It's not really in the spirit of free thinking though, is it?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 01:37:46 PM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?

I have repeatedly observed their effects, however I have seldom viewed them with a telescope. I believe they may be subterranean in nature.

It wasn't just out of the blue.  I personally observed a couple of wobbles.

He grew increasingly sarcastic, then went entirely troll.  That is not a wobble. 

On december 22nd he made a comment that he thought 50 percent of the fEers were just one person with alts.  And byt eh 25th he was suddenly an fer.

Truth is not a gradual process. Truth becomes known.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 09, 2012, 01:39:53 PM
The use of the word 'troll' automatically exempts your post from consideration in any discussion on consistency.

What is the thought process behind this conclusion?  I disagree.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 09, 2012, 01:40:57 PM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?

I have repeatedly observed their effects, however I have seldom viewed them with a telescope. I believe they may be subterranean in nature.

It wasn't just out of the blue.  I personally observed a couple of wobbles.

He grew increasingly sarcastic, then went entirely troll.  That is not a wobble. 

On december 22nd he made a comment that he thought 50 percent of the fEers were just one person with alts.  And byt eh 25th he was suddenly an fer.

Truth is not a gradual process. Truth becomes known.

Just lol... Okay, scvs, just have your fun playing devils advocate then.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 01:41:08 PM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?

I have repeatedly observed their effects, however I have seldom viewed them with a telescope. I believe they may be subterranean in nature.
So you don't 'directly observe the moon shrimp' any time, especially not every night, right? Any other posts you got wrong?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 01:55:12 PM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?

I have repeatedly observed their effects, however I have seldom viewed them with a telescope. I believe they may be subterranean in nature.
So you don't 'directly observe the moon shrimp' any time, especially not every night, right? Any other posts you got wrong?
Well for one, I said just about every night. Indeed, sometimes the moon never shows up. You know the moon shrimp phases right? Sometimes the moon is on the day side of the planet. I know, hard to imagine, but it happens.

When I do see the moon, however, I am directly observing the shrimp. Afterall, what is observing something if it isn't the processing of photons emitted by that object? I see photons emitted by the moon shrimp, therefore I observe them.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 01:59:27 PM
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?

I have repeatedly observed their effects, however I have seldom viewed them with a telescope. I believe they may be subterranean in nature.
So you don't 'directly observe the moon shrimp' any time, especially not every night, right? Any other posts you got wrong?
Well for one, I said just about every night. Indeed, sometimes the moon never shows up. You know the moon shrimp phases right? Sometimes the moon is on the day side of the planet. I know, hard to imagine, but it happens.

When I do see the moon, however, I am directly observing the shrimp. Afterall, what is observing something if it isn't the processing of photons emitted by that object? I see photons emitted by the moon shrimp, therefore I observe them.
No. You'd have to be able to discern that they are indeed shrimp before you could determine that you weren't just viewing their effects. The photons involved could, for example, have been emitted by the shrimp, absorbed by dust on the lunar surface and then re-emitted to you. So the effect is indirect and you've not observed the shrimp directly.

Have you had high school physics yet?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 02:03:34 PM
The ones I witnessed were created directly by the moon shrimp inhabitants. Only the darker areas are portions where the shrimp are less dense and deeper undergroud.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 02:06:06 PM
The ones I witnessed were created directly by the moon shrimp inhabitants. Only the darker areas are portions where the shrimp are less dense and deeper undergroud.
Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 02:10:11 PM
The ones I witnessed were created directly by the moon shrimp inhabitants. Only the darker areas are portions where the shrimp are less dense and deeper undergroud.
Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?
Are you suggesting the light comes from somewhere else? I suggest you wait for the moon to appear during the day and then look where the sun is. Chances are they won't line up at all. That is because the light from the moon isn't reflected sun light.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 02:15:12 PM
The ones I witnessed were created directly by the moon shrimp inhabitants. Only the darker areas are portions where the shrimp are less dense and deeper undergroud.
Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?
Are you suggesting the light comes from somewhere else? I suggest you wait for the moon to appear during the day and then look where the sun is. Chances are they won't line up at all. That is because the light from the moon isn't reflected sun light.
I certainly allow for the possibility just like an zetetic would.

No, that logic fails horribly. Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other. You are arguing from a false premise.

Have you had high school math? Do you understand the basics of how to argue?

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 02:22:27 PM
Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other.
When I shine a flash light in one direction, the area behind me should light up? Fascinating.

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?

I told you I can observe the moon shrimp through my telescope. Which I jury rigged together with hand picked OEM parts. I couldn't just buy any telescope, they might have been tampered with. You understand.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 02:28:21 PM
Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other.
When I shine a flash light in one direction, the area behind me should light up? Fascinating.

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?

I told you I can observe the moon shrimp through my telescope. Which I jury rigged together with hand picked OEM parts. I couldn't just buy any telescope, they might have been tampered with. You understand.
Okay, tell us how you can. What magnification is your homemade telescope? How big is the smallest shrimp you can see? Why haven't you posted photos of your telescope and the moon shrimp that you can see?

You are just making things up, aren't you?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 02:45:31 PM
Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other.
When I shine a flash light in one direction, the area behind me should light up? Fascinating.

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?

I told you I can observe the moon shrimp through my telescope. Which I jury rigged together with hand picked OEM parts. I couldn't just buy any telescope, they might have been tampered with. You understand.
Okay, tell us how you can. What magnification is your homemade telescope? How big is the smallest shrimp you can see? Why haven't you posted photos of your telescope and the moon shrimp that you can see?

You are just making things up, aren't you?

The magnification is at max 150x, but that is using my largest lens and it is wonky to work with. I usually work with 70x. I have been thus far unable to capture a clear picture of the moon shrimp themselves, however some viewings have shown evidence of the creature's movement as I've found disturbed dust streaks along the moon.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 09, 2012, 05:10:27 PM
Protip: Clocktower is trying to trick you into saying that you've seen them so that he can start talking about how that's impossible.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 05:18:06 PM
Protip: Clocktower is trying to trick you into saying that you've seen them so that he can start talking about how that's impossible.
I was hoping to come back to another thrilling chapter of ClockTower Chronicles but I come back to this.  >:(
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: zarg on January 09, 2012, 05:25:48 PM
Clocktower is trying to trick you into saying that you've seen them

What, you mean like this?

I directly observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Please try to pay attention.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 09, 2012, 05:30:09 PM
Clocktower is trying to trick you into saying that you've seen them

What, you mean like this?

I directly observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Please try to pay attention.

No, it would more be him saying,

Quote
i saw a moonshramp the other nite. It sed hi
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: zarg on January 09, 2012, 05:41:58 PM
Post sober please.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Tausami on January 09, 2012, 05:45:26 PM
Post sober please.

That was an actual quote.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 09:06:36 PM
Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other.
When I shine a flash light in one direction, the area behind me should light up? Fascinating.

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?

I told you I can observe the moon shrimp through my telescope. Which I jury rigged together with hand picked OEM parts. I couldn't just buy any telescope, they might have been tampered with. You understand.
Okay, tell us how you can. What magnification is your homemade telescope? How big is the smallest shrimp you can see? Why haven't you posted photos of your telescope and the moon shrimp that you can see?

You are just making things up, aren't you?

The magnification is at max 150x, but that is using my largest lens and it is wonky to work with. I usually work with 70x. I have been thus far unable to capture a clear picture of the moon shrimp themselves, however some viewings have shown evidence of the creature's movement as I've found disturbed dust streaks along the moon.
So what's keeping you from documenting these observations? Your Nobel Prize awaits you.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 10:05:49 PM
Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other.
When I shine a flash light in one direction, the area behind me should light up? Fascinating.

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?

I told you I can observe the moon shrimp through my telescope. Which I jury rigged together with hand picked OEM parts. I couldn't just buy any telescope, they might have been tampered with. You understand.
Okay, tell us how you can. What magnification is your homemade telescope? How big is the smallest shrimp you can see? Why haven't you posted photos of your telescope and the moon shrimp that you can see?

You are just making things up, aren't you?

The magnification is at max 150x, but that is using my largest lens and it is wonky to work with. I usually work with 70x. I have been thus far unable to capture a clear picture of the moon shrimp themselves, however some viewings have shown evidence of the creature's movement as I've found disturbed dust streaks along the moon.
So what's keeping you from documenting these observations? Your Nobel Prize awaits you.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 10:10:47 PM
Two things don't have to 'line up'  for one to illuminate the other.
When I shine a flash light in one direction, the area behind me should light up? Fascinating.

I repeat: Tell us how you know that the ones you witness almost every night come directly from moon shrimp inhabitants. You are just making things up, aren't you?

I told you I can observe the moon shrimp through my telescope. Which I jury rigged together with hand picked OEM parts. I couldn't just buy any telescope, they might have been tampered with. You understand.
Okay, tell us how you can. What magnification is your homemade telescope? How big is the smallest shrimp you can see? Why haven't you posted photos of your telescope and the moon shrimp that you can see?

You are just making things up, aren't you?

The magnification is at max 150x, but that is using my largest lens and it is wonky to work with. I usually work with 70x. I have been thus far unable to capture a clear picture of the moon shrimp themselves, however some viewings have shown evidence of the creature's movement as I've found disturbed dust streaks along the moon.
So what's keeping you from documenting these observations? Your Nobel Prize awaits you.
So what is keeping you from capturing a clear picture of the moon shrimp themselves? Your Nobel Prize awaits you. Also you could just invite the Nobel Prize Committee over to your magical telescope to see for themselves.

And, AFAIK, the only other people who aren't able to capture clear pictures of what that can readily and repeatedly see are delusional or lying.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 10:24:38 PM
I would need an observatory sized telescope to capture pictures of the moon clear enough to outline the moon shrimp. This means reserving an Observatory for use (And paying for that time), awaiting the appearance of a relatively large shrimp movement (they are seen easiest while on the move) and then after all this preparation, pray that NASA has not tampered with the observatory telescope.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Pongo on January 09, 2012, 10:31:39 PM
Not to mention that Rush is just using the word "shrimp" out of simplicity. All we know about them for sure is that they may look shrimp-like, they emit harmful light, and they are telepathic. When their existence is proven, and it will be, do not be surprised if they do not align with your preconceptions.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 10:35:22 PM
Not to mention that Rush is just using the word "shrimp" out of simplicity. All we know about them for sure is that they may look shrimp-like, they emit harmful light, and they are telepathic. When their existence is proven, and it will be, do not be surprised if they do not align with your preconceptions.
I'm sure that if Rush weren't delusional or lying, that he could draw what he's seen, have skeptics view through his magic telescope, and about a dozen other definitive efforts. Of course that he hasn't done so means that he's delusional or lying.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 10:36:42 PM
I would need an observatory sized telescope to capture pictures of the moon clear enough to outline the moon shrimp. This means reserving an Observatory for use (And paying for that time), awaiting the appearance of a relatively large shrimp movement (they are seen easiest while on the move) and then after all this preparation, pray that NASA has not tampered with the observatory telescope.
Why would you need a bigger telescope to capture what you can already see? I guess we now know that you're lying or delusional. Thanks for the evidence.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 10:38:45 PM
I would need an observatory sized telescope to capture pictures of the moon clear enough to outline the moon shrimp. This means reserving an Observatory for use (And paying for that time), awaiting the appearance of a relatively large shrimp movement (they are seen easiest while on the move) and then after all this preparation, pray that NASA has not tampered with the observatory telescope.
Why would you need a bigger telescope to capture what you can already see? I guess we now know that you're lying or delusional. Thanks for the evidence.
You apparently don't understand how telescopes work. I'm starting to wonder if you're really into any type of science. Are you an Arts major?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Pongo on January 09, 2012, 10:51:34 PM
Not to mention that Rush is just using the word "shrimp" out of simplicity. All we know about them for sure is that they may look shrimp-like, they emit harmful light, and they are telepathic. When their existence is proven, and it will be, do not be surprised if they do not align with your preconceptions.
I'm sure that if Rush weren't delusional or lying, that he could draw what he's seen, have skeptics view through his magic telescope, and about a dozen other definitive efforts. Of course that he hasn't done so means that he's delusional or lying.

As we know, the shrimp-like creatures ARE telepathic. They choose who to reveal themselves to and who not to. I once talked to a Native American who said that he used to conduct sweat lodges and in the glowing red stones he would often see what he thought looked like shrimp. He didn't know why, but for years after that, he was inexplicably drawn to the magnificence of the moon. Innately though, he knew not to stare at it for long periods. Eventually, he bought a telascope and gazed at the moon. That night, having finally gone the extra mile, the moon creatures showed themselves to my friend. He had many questions for them that they were more than willing to answer. They told him that most people only see shaded craters when they look at the moon because that's what the creatures want them to see. They also warned mankind to be more respectful of their environment and when my friend asked why they appeared to him, they told him it was because he was special and open minded.

Now, I know that the creatures telepathically show themselves to Earthlings, it's happened to at least one person on this forum.  I dont know if they actually look like shrimp or if that's how they choose to be seen. Now, if Rush had a similar experience, I cannot say. Perhaps they are waiting for him to take just one more step.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 10:56:17 PM

As we know, the shrimp-like creatures ARE telepathic. They choose who to reveal themselves to and who not to. I once talked to a Native American who said that he used to conduct sweat lodges and in the glowing red stones he would often see what he thought looked like shrimp. He didn't know why, but for years after that, he was inexplicably drawn to the magnificence of the moon. Innately though, he knew not to stare at it for long periods. Eventually, he bought a telascope and gazed at the moon. That night, having finally gone the extra mile, the moon creatures showed themselves to my friend. He had many questions for them that they were more than willing to answer. They told him that most people only see shaded craters when they look at the moon because that's what the creatures want them to see. They also warned mankind to be more respectful of their environment and when my friend asked why they appeared to him, they told him it was because he was special and open minded.

Now, I know that the creatures telepathically show themselves to Earthlings, it's happened to at least one person on this forum.  I dont know if they actually look like shrimp or if that's how they choose to be seen. Now, if Rush had a similar experience, I cannot say. Perhaps they are waiting for him to take just one more step.
And that fallacy would be special pleading. It's so nice of you to make such obvious mistakes.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 10:57:52 PM
As a member of the military, if I were to provide irrefutable evidence of an indigenous life form that resides on the moon and causes detrimental effects to humanity, I would have no choice but to recommend their immediate termination to military commanders.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 11:07:38 PM
As a member of the military, if I were to provide irrefutable evidence of an indigenous life form that resides on the moon and causes detrimental effects to humanity, I would have no choice but to recommend their immediate termination to military commanders.
So?

Also that fallacy would be a false dichotomy. There are more options than just immediate termination.

Also, what's keeping you from recommending their immediate termination? Don't you already know all that?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2012, 11:15:04 PM
As a member of the military, if I were to provide irrefutable evidence of an indigenous life form that resides on the moon and causes detrimental effects to humanity, I would have no choice but to recommend their immediate termination to military commanders.
So?

Also that fallacy would be a false dichotomy. There are more options than just immediate termination.

Also, what's keeping you from recommending their immediate termination? Don't you already know all that?

I can surmise that a creature exists and it is harmful to humans. Convincing multiple MAJCOM commanders, SECDEF, and PotUS would require an ungodly amount of evidence. Probably nothing short of me catching one in a jar. I also don't see any other options than termination. Negotiation is not an option (We can't ask a life form to stop living as a form of negotiation) and we can not allow a creature to harm us knowingly.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 09, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
As a member of the military, if I were to provide irrefutable evidence of an indigenous life form that resides on the moon and causes detrimental effects to humanity, I would have no choice but to recommend their immediate termination to military commanders.
So?

Also that fallacy would be a false dichotomy. There are more options than just immediate termination.

Also, what's keeping you from recommending their immediate termination? Don't you already know all that?

I can surmise that a creature exists and it is harmful to humans. Convincing multiple MAJCOM commanders, SECDEF, and PotUS would require an ungodly amount of evidence. Probably nothing short of me catching one in a jar. I also don't see any other options than termination. Negotiation is not an option (We can't ask a life form to stop living as a form of negotiation) and we can not allow a creature to harm us knowingly.
HAHAHA
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 11:25:49 PM
As a member of the military, if I were to provide irrefutable evidence of an indigenous life form that resides on the moon and causes detrimental effects to humanity, I would have no choice but to recommend their immediate termination to military commanders.
So?

Also that fallacy would be a false dichotomy. There are more options than just immediate termination.

Also, what's keeping you from recommending their immediate termination? Don't you already know all that?

I can surmise that a creature exists and it is harmful to humans. Convincing multiple MAJCOM commanders, SECDEF, and PotUS would require an ungodly amount of evidence. Probably nothing short of me catching one in a jar. I also don't see any other options than termination. Negotiation is not an option (We can't ask a life form to stop living as a form of negotiation) and we can not allow a creature to harm us knowingly.
So you can only surmise that a creature exists. Here I thought you had seen them and knew that they exist.

Backpedal much?

We'll just take that as a concession. Thanks.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Pongo on January 09, 2012, 11:33:20 PM
As a member of the military, if I were to provide irrefutable evidence of an indigenous life form that resides on the moon and causes detrimental effects to humanity, I would have no choice but to recommend their immediate termination to military commanders.
So?

Also that fallacy would be a false dichotomy. There are more options than just immediate termination.

Also, what's keeping you from recommending their immediate termination? Don't you already know all that?

I can surmise that a creature exists and it is harmful to humans. Convincing multiple MAJCOM commanders, SECDEF, and PotUS would require an ungodly amount of evidence. Probably nothing short of me catching one in a jar. I also don't see any other options than termination. Negotiation is not an option (We can't ask a life form to stop living as a form of negotiation) and we can not allow a creature to harm us knowingly.

Plus the creatures could most likely telepathically project the image of an empty jar =\
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 11:42:45 PM
Plus the creatures could most likely telepathically project the image of an empty jar =\
Again: special pleading fallacy.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Pongo on January 09, 2012, 11:50:38 PM
In your case, they would project the image of an invisable floating dragon in your garage.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 09, 2012, 11:57:14 PM
In your case, they would project the image of an invisable floating dragon in your garage.
Now you're making no sense in two ways: projecting an invisible image?? How does that work for you? I am even more concerned for your mental health now.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Pongo on January 10, 2012, 12:00:27 AM
I was in a book I read once. I guess you're not in the know. It was about dragons and demons and aliens.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 12:02:30 AM
I was in a book I read once. I guess you're not in the know. It was about dragons and demons and aliens.
Thinking that an author was referring to you as you read a book is usually a sign of mental illness. Do see a professional soon please.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Pongo on January 10, 2012, 12:06:17 AM
I meant to say "it". I sorry, I know you can't handle typos. I post from a phone and I'm afraid it's difficult to proof what I post. I'll endeavor to do better for you.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 10, 2012, 04:01:05 AM
I'm going to be submitting this paper for peer review soon, tell me what you think.

PURPOSE: To find a cure for HIV/AIDS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:  Researchers surveyed 1000 people to find anyone who had witnessed AIDS having been cured.
RESULTS: 4 Respondents claimed to have seen AIDS cured. Of those respondents, 3 claimed it was through prayer, and 1 claimed it was by rubbing acorns all over his body.
CONCLUSION: It appears as though praying while rubbing acorns on your body is the most effective treatment for AIDS and a promising potential cure.

Notice any problems with this method of gathering data?
Look, first hand observation may seem like convincing evidence if you are the one seeing it happen, but eye witness testimony ranks among the least compelling types of evidence when trying to convince others. My example demonstrates this. The Salem witch trials demonstrate what happens when people do accept eye witness testimony.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 06:48:31 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 10, 2012, 07:11:18 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.
Laughs were had, but at no point have I asserted that eye witnesses can never be taken as evidence. Just that it is among the weakest forms of evidence. Eye witness (A) pointing at suspect (B) and saying he committed a crime is trumped by the DNA and Cell phone record evidence implicating (A) as the true criminal. Without such evidence, it is the word of person A verses person B.

I simply gave examples of how eye witness accounts can be used inappropriately, and why a true skeptic, some one who is really zetetic, would search for something more SUBSTANTIAL than eye witness testimony. 
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 07:15:10 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.
Laughs were had, but at no point have I asserted that eye witnesses can never be taken as evidence. Just that it is among the weakest forms of evidence. Eye witness (A) pointing at suspect (B) and saying he committed a crime is trumped by the DNA and Cell phone record evidence implicating (A) as the true criminal. Without such evidence, it is the word of person A verses person B.

I simply gave examples of how eye witness accounts can be used inappropriately, and why a true skeptic, some one who is really zetetic, would search for something more SUBSTANTIAL than eye witness testimony.

If you want to provide the funding for my expedition to the moon I'll be glad to gather more evidence.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: AnonConda on January 10, 2012, 08:26:04 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.
Laughs were had, but at no point have I asserted that eye witnesses can never be taken as evidence. Just that it is among the weakest forms of evidence. Eye witness (A) pointing at suspect (B) and saying he committed a crime is trumped by the DNA and Cell phone record evidence implicating (A) as the true criminal. Without such evidence, it is the word of person A verses person B.

I simply gave examples of how eye witness accounts can be used inappropriately, and why a true skeptic, some one who is really zetetic, would search for something more SUBSTANTIAL than eye witness testimony.

If you want to provide the funding for my expedition to the moon I'll be glad to gather more evidence.
Even if you were serious about your claim direct observation of moon shrimp (they sound delicious btw), this claim is not compelling because you provided no means for others to make the same observations. If we all could obtain this direct observation, that would be fantastic.

OK, let me make this simple. All I am asking is for evidence of celestial gears, bendy light, or moon critters. This evidence must meet the same standards by which FES members judge RE evidence by. If your criteria is direct observation, provide a means by which I and other scientists can directly observe these phenomena.
That is all.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 08:28:23 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
FSM. I never said that I wanted the 'moon demons' or even 'moon shrimp' to live.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 08:31:26 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
FSM. I never said that I wanted the 'moon demons' or even 'moon shrimp' to live.

You obviously want to keep the option open. Pleasing the moon demons seems to be the only thing on your agenda now.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 08:35:02 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
FSM. I never said that I wanted the 'moon demons' or even 'moon shrimp' to live.

You obviously want to keep the option open. Pleasing the moon demons seems to be the only thing on your agenda now.
Again FSM. I never said that I want to keep the option open.

I worry that you're having trouble comprehending. Perhaps, it's time for a check-up for you. Please make an appointment soon. We're worried about you.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 08:36:34 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
FSM. I never said that I wanted the 'moon demons' or even 'moon shrimp' to live.

You obviously want to keep the option open. Pleasing the moon demons seems to be the only thing on your agenda now.
Again FSM. I never said that I want to keep the option open.

I worry that you're having trouble comprehending. Perhaps, it's time for a check-up for you. Please make an appointment soon. We're worried about you.

If you don't want the option to be open, why suggest it at all? For the pure sake of derailing yet another discussion?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 08:42:32 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
FSM. I never said that I wanted the 'moon demons' or even 'moon shrimp' to live.

You obviously want to keep the option open. Pleasing the moon demons seems to be the only thing on your agenda now.
Again FSM. I never said that I want to keep the option open.

I worry that you're having trouble comprehending. Perhaps, it's time for a check-up for you. Please make an appointment soon. We're worried about you.

If you don't want the option to be open, why suggest it at all? For the pure sake of derailing yet another discussion?
If I wanted the option to be open, I would say so. Arguing about what I didn't say is derailing this discussion. Perhaps you'd like to debate the points I did make instead of making up things. Should I expect you to be honest or not?
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 08:47:51 AM
Many good laughs were had in this thread.  Especially AnonConda's assertion that eye witnesses are never and should never be taken as evidence.

Oh, and there are lots of options. You simply fail. You'd, for example, don't know that they have to emit all the frequencies. Perhaps they need only supplemental vitamins to avoid emit light.
This just shows that you're a satanic moon worshipper. Of course you would want the moon demons to live, you love them.

Moon demons...I like it better than shrimp.
FSM. I never said that I wanted the 'moon demons' or even 'moon shrimp' to live.

You obviously want to keep the option open. Pleasing the moon demons seems to be the only thing on your agenda now.
Again FSM. I never said that I want to keep the option open.

I worry that you're having trouble comprehending. Perhaps, it's time for a check-up for you. Please make an appointment soon. We're worried about you.

If you don't want the option to be open, why suggest it at all? For the pure sake of derailing yet another discussion?
If I wanted the option to be open, I would say so. Arguing about what I didn't say is derailing this discussion. Perhaps you'd like to debate the points I did make instead of making up things. Should I expect you to be honest or not?

You clearly had an intention to show options other than immediate termination. You seem to think because something is not explicitly said that it isn't made clearly as a point in your words. I dare to hope that social skills is not something that would be missing on your résumé.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 08:55:50 AM
You clearly had an intention to show options other than immediate termination. You seem to think because something is not explicitly said that it isn't made clearly as a point in your words. I dare to hope that social skills is not something that would be missing on your résumé.
So, I showed that there are other options. That in no way indicates that I favor any option. Please do pay attention.

If you're making conclusions like these without reason, then I do worry for you. Again, you appear to need help.
Title: Re: Care to be consistent?
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 09:00:42 AM
You clearly had an intention to show options other than immediate termination. You seem to think because something is not explicitly said that it isn't made clearly as a point in your words. I dare to hope that social skills is not something that would be missing on your résumé.
So, I showed that there are other options. That in no way indicates that I favor any option. Please do pay attention.

If you're making conclusions like these without reason, then I do worry for you. Again, you appear to need help.

Your attempts to hide your moon demon worship are futile.