The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Diskus on October 19, 2006, 02:19:47 PM

Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 19, 2006, 02:19:47 PM
I just read the FAQ and saw what you said About Antartica,I've been there and I've Crossed it,there were no ICe walls,as well just how many of you guys that belive here are American?Because this died out in Europe 200 hundred years ago.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Unimportant on October 19, 2006, 02:21:25 PM
That's funny because I've been to the ice wall (what you call antarctica) and I walked right up to the edge and looked over into space.

Hmm, I guess one of us must be lying. How do we know which one?
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 02:21:42 PM
Diskus,

I have a feeling you've never even been to Antarctica, much less crossed it.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 19, 2006, 02:28:33 PM
I have been,with a team from N.A.S((National Antarica study))a friend of mine work with them and he said they were going and new I always wished to go there.

And show me proof of the Ice wall,on no wait you cant,its transparent to photos,so no proof,yet there is with Antarica.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 02:30:45 PM
Why ask us to show you proof of the ice wall when you've failed miserably in showing us proof of Antarctica?
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 19, 2006, 02:35:06 PM
wait,is that an idiot talking,open you eyes,there is proof every where of it.Type it into google and plent of photos will pop up.

as well why would the goverments want to cover this over.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: "Diskus"
wait,is that an idiot talking,open you eyes,there is proof every where of it.Type it into google and plent of photos will pop up.


Where? Every photo I saw looked exactly like the ice wall.

Quote
as well why would the goverments want to cover this over.
 

No one knows. Doesn't matter.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 19, 2006, 02:48:56 PM
dosent matter,then why is this even here,it does matter.

As well how could it look like the ice wall if you cant take pictures of it  :P

(http://images.google.ie/images?q=tbn:yBR7C2IRUvKA_M:http://www.resa.net/nasa/images/antarctica/antartica.jpg)

And as well why would most of the world not belive it and think that you guys are idiots.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: "Diskus"
dosent matter,then why is this even here,it does matter.


Why is what here?

Quote
As well how could it look like the ice wall if you cant take pictures of it  :P


No one said you can't photograph the ice wall.

Quote
And as well why would most of the world not belive it and think that you guys are idiots.


This makes no sense.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 19, 2006, 02:55:45 PM
I read on one of these stupid threads that you can photograph the wall as of it made of blue something,hell I dont know,read the threads below  :P
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: holybrain on October 19, 2006, 02:56:44 PM
I don't think Diskus is part of an "Antarctic" study if he can't even spell.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 02:56:48 PM
Whoever said that was joking.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Earthisround99 on October 19, 2006, 03:04:42 PM
This is the most definitive proof that antarctica exists yet they still deny it. You can't change their views even if you had a video they would call it fake.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 03:08:16 PM
I hope you don't mean this thread.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: phaseshifter on October 19, 2006, 04:57:16 PM
Quote
No one said you can't photograph the ice wall.


Actually , yes some FE did. It's supposedly blue and unphotographable. Though this sentence is a paradox, since if it is blue, then it can be photographed.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 04:59:43 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Actually , yes some FE did. It's supposedly blue and unphotographable. Though this sentence is a paradox, since if it is blue, then it can be photographed.


I know, but I think the FE was just introducing a fleeting hypothesis to explain some question posed by an RE.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: phaseshifter on October 19, 2006, 06:40:33 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Actually , yes some FE did. It's supposedly blue and unphotographable. Though this sentence is a paradox, since if it is blue, then it can be photographed.


I know, but I think the FE was just introducing a fleeting hypothesis to explain some question posed by an RE.


Well that IS a problem. The theory changes depending on which FE'er you talk to. That's how we got into the whole "does flat earth tilt?" argument.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 20, 2006, 05:55:03 AM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Hmm, I guess one of us must be lying. How do we know which one?


Hmm, I think it's a safe bet to say the grossly outnumbered, manifestly deluded individual. Oh wait... that's you!
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 20, 2006, 06:33:19 AM
Quote from: "ciroc"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Hmm, I guess one of us must be lying. How do we know which one?


Hmm, I think it's a safe bet to say the grossly outnumbered, manifestly deluded individual. Oh wait... that's you!

I suppose you've been to 'antarctica' inbetween internet sessions as well, have you? Or perhaps you're one of the immense, almost innumerable majority of people on this earth who hasn't, correct? Has it ever occured to you that the reason we're outnumbered is because the majority of people are indisputedly ignorant? Surely even you wouldn't argue that most people can claim to have seen 'antarctica' for themselves?
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 20, 2006, 06:58:02 AM
It's funny how you exaggerate certain comments in order to reinforce your weak POV.
Quote from: "NEEMAN"
Has it ever occured to you that the reason we're outnumbered is because the majority of people are indisputedly ignorant?

No, that has not occured to me. I have more sense than to relegate myself in to your deviant state of mind. Indisputedly ignorant? Again, you are mistaken.

Quote
Surely even you wouldn't argue that most people can claim to have seen 'antarctica' for themselves?

And this is supposed to infer what exactly? How can one possibly have a logical and sensible debate with someone who claims that any disparaging evidence is a conspiracy? As I stated prior, it is like arguing with a brick wall.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 20, 2006, 07:17:08 AM
They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen. I'm not saying they are stupid- we are all ignorant, myself included. It's not an insult, merely a fact. We are ignorant, but to deny our ignorance is stupidity. To paraphrase Socrates, 'I am only wise in that I know I know nothing'.

Quote
And this is supposed to infer what exactly? How can one possibly have a logical and sensible debate with someone who claims that any disparaging evidence is a conspiracy? As I stated prior, it is like arguing with a brick wall.

It is supposed to infer that you have no right to claim we are 'deviant' when your opinions and beliefs are based entirely on what other people have told you. Tell me, what authority do they have that we don't?
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: phaseshifter on October 20, 2006, 11:12:45 AM
Quote
They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen.


Have you ever seen your lungs?
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 20, 2006, 12:05:55 PM
Actualy while it may seem the rest of the world is to arrgant to see the rest of the world as "flat" you should take a good long look at you selfs,we ask you for evidens then you say for us to prove evidence

as well as my spelling,Im Particaly dislexic and How does that affect me been part of an Antarica study.

As well if the Moon and sun were supposidly built then who built them,they have been around for billions of years.wel a billion or just less for the moon.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Mythix Profit on October 20, 2006, 02:55:10 PM
the Sun and Moon are a great example of declining quality standards over time.
The more recently constructed Moon is of clearly inferior crafting; made from cheese, It only emits cold light.
 And look at all the damage on the rough, unfinished surface.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Diskus on October 20, 2006, 03:04:10 PM
Pleas etell me that you dont actualy think that the Moon is made of cheese.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: phaseshifter on October 20, 2006, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: "Diskus"
Pleas etell me that you dont actualy think that the Moon is made of cheese.


You never know. Some people beleive iin the turtles at the bottom of the earth remember?
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: CrimsonKing on October 20, 2006, 03:35:07 PM
No, they dont, that is this awesome thing called a joke, making fun of discworld to be exact.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Space_Maze on October 20, 2006, 03:40:30 PM
ANY member of this forum could cross over the south pole if he saved up some money and wanted to. It's easy.

Go to Australia. Get onto a plane to South America. You will go STRAIGHT OVER the continent of Antarctica.

If you consider that an illusion, it must be a VERY fast illusion, with a VERY strong sideways drift.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: CrimsonKing on October 20, 2006, 03:42:27 PM
Gimmie the money and I'll try it out.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Space_Maze on October 20, 2006, 03:45:19 PM
If the flat earth society was actually interested in proving their theory, they would have collected enough money to have ONE PERSON try it by now.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: CrimsonKing on October 20, 2006, 03:46:53 PM
Why I'm a member and surely I'm not giving a cent, you arn't gonna give a cent, I'm faliling to see how this is gonna work
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Space_Maze on October 20, 2006, 03:50:08 PM
You are telling me that the sky is green. But you can't be bothered to go out and actually LOOK at the sky to see if it is green or not. Ergo, the sky is green.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: CrimsonKing on October 20, 2006, 03:54:03 PM
Nope, I can look up and see that the sky is green,  I'd compare this situation with saying, "all Thai Hookers have some STD," you don't believe me, because you can't go there and try them out, for lack of time and resources
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Space_Maze on October 20, 2006, 03:58:46 PM
You fail to mention that dozens of flights cross over this route that you claim to not exist every day. The scope of the conspiracy you'd need to cover this up is beyond comprehension.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: CrimsonKing on October 20, 2006, 04:00:26 PM
Agreed, those gov't bastards are doing a great job
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Space_Maze on October 20, 2006, 04:03:30 PM
:roll:

Oh well .. no point in discussing with me anyways. As an astronomer, I'm part of the conspiracy. YAY! :D I'm an evil conspirator. I've always wanted to try that :D
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: phaseshifter on October 20, 2006, 04:37:00 PM
Quote from: "Space_Maze"
:roll:

Oh well .. no point in discussing with me anyways. As an astronomer, I'm part of the conspiracy. YAY! :D I'm an evil conspirator. I've always wanted to try that :D


You lazy bum. While we're busting our ass working for our pay, you just get money to keep a secret and pretend that things ar ethe way everyone thinks they are.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 20, 2006, 04:45:38 PM
Quote from: "NEEMAN"
They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen. I'm not saying they are stupid- we are all ignorant, myself included. It's not an insult, merely a fact. We are ignorant, but to deny our ignorance is stupidity. To paraphrase Socrates, 'I am only wise in that I know I know nothing'.

Quote
And this is supposed to infer what exactly? How can one possibly have a logical and sensible debate with someone who claims that any disparaging evidence is a conspiracy? As I stated prior, it is like arguing with a brick wall.

It is supposed to infer that you have no right to claim we are 'deviant' when your opinions and beliefs are based entirely on what other people have told you. Tell me, what authority do they have that we don't?


Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense. (http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0144.gif)
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Mythix Profit on October 20, 2006, 04:47:15 PM
as an astronomer, you can confirm that the moon is made of ancient petrified cheese.
as a conspiritor, you can affirm the myth that it is something other than that.
either way, your opinion is suspect 50% of the time.

and don't be mocking the great turtle ye blasphemers.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 20, 2006, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote
They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen.


Have you ever seen your lungs?

No, I have not, and I have no reason to believe it exists other than what other people tell me. In fact, for all I know, the entire world is an illusion, as in reality all the things we say, feel or smell are just electro-chemical impulses sent to our brain. The most basic tennent of philosophy is that we don't know whether what we perceive is real, and cannot possibly know. We make a big assumption that what we perceive is exists, because ultimately we perceive the world indirectly via our senses- to use Platos analogy, all that we see, taste, hear, smell & touch are merely the shadows on the wall which the fire produces. When I'm already aware that everything I see may not exist, it only increases the possibility that a lot of what I haven't seen for myself may not exist either.

Your entire existence is an assumed truth, whether you like it or not. Questioning the nature of that assumed truth isn't really that far-out.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 20, 2006, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: "Space_Maze"
If the flat earth society was actually interested in proving their theory, they would have collected enough money to have ONE PERSON try it by now.


Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 20, 2006, 05:09:50 PM
Quote from: "ciroc"
Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense. (http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0144.gif)


See above post. And I made no reference to the meaning of deviant; I merely suggested that saying we are deviant just because we question what we are told by forces we have no reason to trust is foolish.

Quote
Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....
No, it's not a good point, because anyone who went would have to get their own plane (expensive) and then, as per the conspiracy, risk confrontation with the security forces which patrol the ice-wall.

He is also mistaken in his belief regarding commercial flights over 'Antarctica' by the way- they are extremely rare.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 20, 2006, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: "NEEMAN"
Quote from: "ciroc"
Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense. (http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0144.gif)


See above post. And I made no reference to the meaning of deviant; I merely suggested that saying we are deviant just because we question what we are told by forces we have no reason to trust is foolish.


Can you read?! I know you didn't make a reference to the meaning of "deviant".  I'm saying you should as you completely misunderstood the meaning of the word (and it's obvious you still do)!


Quote
Quote
Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....
No, it's not a good point, because anyone who went would have to get their own plane (expensive) and then, as per the conspiracy, risk confrontation with the security forces which patrol the ice-wall.

He is also mistaken in his belief regarding commercial flights over 'Antarctica' by the way- they are extremely rare.


No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 20, 2006, 05:43:00 PM
Deviant: "departing from normal standards"- Oxford English Dictionary

By saying I have a deviant mind, or that my mind is in a deviant state, you imply that my mind is in some way abnormal- hence that there was something wrong with me. Perhaps you meant to say that my beliefs were deviant, but then, that isn't what you said, is it?

By saying my mind is 'deviant', you are implying that there is something intrinsically wrong with my mind, and that this is the reason that I think the way I do. What I am saying is that questioning the things we are told in no way means that we have "deviant minds"- on the contrary, we are simply holding our powers of rational to the highest standard, by questioning and scrutinizing what we are told. So, either you believe that it is in some way abnormal to question the world around you (in which case I am quite happy to remain abnormal), or you do not know the meaning of what you said.

Quote
No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.


Could you provide me with the specific details of these routes? I was under the impression that Antarctic flying was extremely dangerous, and that as such, unlike the north pole, it was generally not flown over to any great degree. I may be wrong, but that was what I have been lead to believe.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Mythix Profit on October 20, 2006, 06:07:54 PM
Wow! Non-stop from Espana to New Zealand?aint post-modern technology great?
 S by SW you do pass over the Northernmost point of the frozen Southern continental ring refered to in RE as the antarctic peninsula.

These flights would come nowhere near the IceWall more than a thousand miles distant Southward.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 20, 2006, 07:43:55 PM
Quote from: "NEEMAN"
Deviant: "departing from normal standards"- Oxford English Dictionary

By saying I have a deviant mind, or that my mind is in a deviant state, you imply that my mind is in some way abnormal- hence that there was something wrong with me. Perhaps you meant to say that my beliefs were deviant, but then, that isn't what you said, is it?

By saying my mind is 'deviant', you are implying that there is something intrinsically wrong with my mind, and that this is the reason that I think the way I do. What I am saying is that questioning the things we are told in no way means that we have "deviant minds"- on the contrary, we are simply holding our powers of rational to the highest standard, by questioning and scrutinizing what we are told. So, either you believe that it is in some way abnormal to question the world around you (in which case I am quite happy to remain abnormal), or you do not know the meaning of what you said.

Quote
No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.


Could you provide me with the specific details of these routes? I was under the impression that Antarctic flying was extremely dangerous, and that as such, unlike the north pole, it was generally not flown over to any great degree. I may be wrong, but that was what I have been lead to believe.


Nice analysis! How long did that take you? Half an hour? A whole hour?
What you said is only partial. Questioning and/or scrutinizing what we are told is one thing and there is nothing wrong or abnormal about that. But to pose and pursue an alternative model (FE model) which is formed on the basis of illogical and arbitrary reasoning is to have a deviant state of mind (since you are departing from normal standards or otherwise differing from the accepted standards of society).
I don't have any details of the Oceania-South America routes on reference. However, with regards to your impression of it being extremely dangerous, that is incorrect. Cathay Pacific Airways offer a non-stop service from Hong Kong to New York which travels directly over the north pole. Whilst alterations need to be made to account for the very low temperatures, it is hardly dangerous.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 21, 2006, 05:46:53 PM
1. If you think that the North pole is similar to the south pole, then you are displaying clear ignorance of the facts you supposedly believe in. As I said before, filghts over the North pole are very common and perfectly safe, but to the best of my knowledge Antarctic flights are extremely dangerous and commerical flights very rare.

2. To be in a deviant state of mind or to have a deviant mind would imply that there is something basically wrong with that mind and the way it functions. However, by your logic, anyone who doesn't believe in God or supernatural beings has a deviant state of mind, as the majority of the worlds population does to some degree. So by that reasoning, anyone who questions accepted assumptions has a deviant mind- Gallileo and Einstein spring to mind.

Of course, this is not the case, as their minds worked in a perfectly normal way- it is merely their beliefs which are deviant, as in my case.

3.
Quote from: "ciroc"
Nice analysis! How long did that take you? Half an hour? A whole hour?

Well, though that's probably the most childish thing you've said so far, I'd just like to point out that I replied to your post 25 minutes after you posted it (which you would know if you had bothered to look at the time of posting which is on every post), whereas you took 2 hours to make your reply. But because I'm not an ass, I'm not going to make any childish comments about it- I'll just presume that like me, you were away from your computer when I posted.
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: ciroc on October 21, 2006, 06:34:57 PM
Quote from: "NEEMAN"
1. If you think that the North pole is similar to the south pole, then you are displaying clear ignorance of the facts you supposedly believe in. As I said before, filghts over the North pole are very common and perfectly safe, but to the best of my knowledge Antarctic flights are extremely dangerous and commerical flights very rare.


The sole reason I mentioned the north pole was because of the similar temperatures encountered. You provided no explanation for why you thought it was dangerous to fly over Antarctica, so could deduce only that..

Quote
2. To be in a deviant state of mind or to have a deviant mind would imply that there is something basically wrong with that mind and the way it functions. However, by your logic, anyone who doesn't believe in God or supernatural beings has a deviant state of mind, as the majority of the worlds population does to some degree. So by that reasoning, anyone who questions accepted assumptions has a deviant mind- Gallileo and Einstein spring to mind.

Of course, this is not the case, as their minds worked in a perfectly normal way- it is merely their beliefs which are deviant, as in my case.


You just don't get it, do you? Relating your situation to that of religious persons and "deviant"(?) atheists is a completely different scenario. It seems you once again failed to read my post. Questioning widely accepted assumptions is not indicative of a deviant mind. What I am addressing is the fact that your alternative "theory" lacks any credible evidence, logic or reasoned thinking. But the fact you hold such overwhelming conviction in this concept implies a corrupted or otherwise deviant mind. It's just rediculous that you compare your situation with that of Gallileo and Einstein. Their postulates were never based upon conspiracies and unjustified arbitrary theories tailored to suit their POV.

Quote
3.
Well, though that's probably the most childish thing you've said so far, I'd just like to point out that I replied to your post 25 minutes after you posted it (which you would know if you had bothered to look at the time of posting which is on every post), whereas you took 2 hours to make your reply. But because I'm not an ass, I'm not going to make any childish comments about it- I'll just presume that like me, you were away from your computer when I posted.


It wasn't childish, I was just curious to how long you spent scrutinizing the very nature and application of the word "deviant".
Title: Antartica not existing
Post by: Lord Wilmore on October 21, 2006, 06:59:41 PM
Quote from: ciroc
The sole reason I mentioned the north pole was because of the similar temperatures encountered. You provided no explanation for why you thought it was dangerous to fly over Antarctica, so could deduce only that..

Because the weather conditions are completely different, and I do mean completely. Antarctica is supposedly a continent, and as such has a weather system which would be incomparable to that of the north pole region, which is entirely different in size and make-up.


Quote from: "ciroc"
You just don't get it, do you? Relating your situation to that of religious persons and "deviant"(?) atheists is a completely different scenario. It seems you once again failed to read my post. Questioning widely accepted assumptions is not indicative of a deviant mind. What I am addressing is the fact that your alternative "theory" lacks any credible evidence, logic or reasoned thinking. But the fact you hold such overwhelming conviction in this concept implies a corrupted or otherwise deviant mind. It's just rediculous that you compare your situation with that of Gallileo and Einstein. Their postulates were never based upon conspiracies and unjustified arbitrary theories tailored to suit their POV.

But taken in itself, our theory makes perfect sense. If you accept that there is a conspiracy without knowing the cause (like you accept there is gravity without knowing the cause), it's not nearly as outlandish. Just like RE theory there are some things we cannot explain which form a core part of our beliefs, but that does not make that theory any less valid. Einsteins theories were an entirely unprove and unsubstantiated alternative to Newtonian physics when he presented them, and only came to be widely accepted in the decades afterwards, and some apsects of it were not 'proven' until after his death. He questioned the physics of Newton (despite the fact those physics made what were apparantly highly accurate predictions) based on a small number of observable disrepencies.

All I am saying is that you accuse us of having a deviant state of mind, which is not the case. I can see the logic in the RE model, but that does not mean I have to accept it and not question it. If I want to believe in God (which I do not, incidently), it does not mean I have a deviant mind just because the concept of god "lacks any credible evidence, logic or reasoned thinking" or that to "hold such overwhelming conviction in this concept implies a corrupted or otherwise deviant mind". Tell me, exactly what do you mean by a "deviant mind"? On the one hand you are saying that it is to believe in something which doesn't make logical sense (like 'God'), but on the other you appear mean that a deviant mind is any mind which does not conform to widely accepted beliefs (like God). If I don't understand you, it's because you are not being clear and, frankly, because you are contradicting yourself.


Quote from: "ciroc"
It wasn't childish, I was just curious to how long you spent scrutinizing the very nature and application of the word "deviant".

I'm sure curiousity was your sole motive.