1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Greetings Im A Noob Plz Help

« on: May 08, 2009, 01:50:57 PM »

If you stand on a large circle and walk in a straight line, you will eventually leave the circle.

"Heading off in one direction" and "walking in a straight line" are two different things.  The layout of FE is such that the north pole is in the center and the Ice Wall (Antarctica in RE) surrounds the outside.  Therefore traveling east or west would not take you in a straight line but in a circle around the north pole.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to walk in one direction? If so, for how long can you walk in one direction before you begin to move in a circle? Surely you could take one step...what about two? Three?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse

« on: May 08, 2009, 01:46:48 PM »

It is impossible. This thread is ridiculous. No sane person viewing a lunar eclipse could conclude that the object moving in front of the sun is not the moon.

Hey genius, a lunar eclipse is when the Earth's shadow moves in front of the moon. 

Haha, touche. I was thinking about a solar eclipse as I was writing my response. I mean to say "No sane person viewing a lunar eclipse could conclude that the object moving in front of the moon is not the Earth.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral

« on: May 08, 2009, 01:38:51 PM »

All of the comments are ad hominem attacks on my intelligence and not the model.

Your model has no purpose. If a five-year old child drew it, there would be no distinction.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral

« on: May 08, 2009, 01:01:10 PM »

Possible Model for The Jimmerson Spiral


Does this make sense?

If that makes sense to anyone, I feel incredibly dumb. I'd find it much easier to discuss this with words, rather than pictures.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral

« on: May 08, 2009, 11:54:44 AM »

Draw it and I will explain it. I can wait until you are done with work.

Here, taken from the thread below on bendy light:

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral

« on: May 08, 2009, 11:50:07 AM »

Can you illustrate your scenario graphically? It will make explaining it much easier.

I'm at work so I cannot draw you a picture, however, the image you're asking for can be described very easily. A man (observer) is standing on a beach at water level. Using sunshine (light source) he views a boat (object) sailing out to sea. After about ten miles, the bottom of the boat will begin to sink below the horizon. At some point over the next three or so miles, the entire object will have disappeared from view (depending on the height of the ship).

"Bendy light" unsuccessfully attempts to explain that in a FE scenario. What I'm asking is: how does this new theory attempt to explain it?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need Help Creating a 6 Minute Long Persuasive Speech on the Flat Earth

« on: May 08, 2009, 11:41:05 AM »

I just stumbled on this thread and I'm a little confused. Why do you guys hang out on this forum? I've been here a few days and it is clear that some people here are complete insane, but it seems there are some sane people sprinkled in.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral

« on: May 08, 2009, 11:35:16 AM »

Well the Jimmerson Spiral could explain why light seems to 'bend' into many directions. It would just be on one part of the spiral.

Maybe I'm not understanding you. Let's translate this to a practical situation: a boat leaving a shore a sinking into the horizon. How does this new theory you're presenting explain that?

And for the record, "bendy light" is not confusing, it is profoundly idiotic.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral

« on: May 08, 2009, 11:23:57 AM »

Perhaps I have horns growing out of my head. But I don't.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 08, 2009, 11:10:54 AM »

Why can't you type out a complete thought? You stated: "light converges with vertical at infinity." There is no point to me responding to that until you clarify specifically what you mean. Use an example if needed.

OK, my example is the graph y=1/x. This converges with the vertical y axis at infinity. This is what light does.

As for the second part, you are suggesting that light is bending in certain directions, which means all vision becomes relative. There is no up and down...it's all space -- if light can bend down, it can also bend up. So, I drew an analogy. If the Earth is flat and after a certain distance light begins to bend upwards (horizon illusion), then it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

Vision is relative to the Earth. There is up and down; they're often referred to as 'up' and 'down'. As we've established, under the Bendy Light Theory, light bends up.

it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

Again, what?

Ok, so let's get on the same page for a moment. Every scenario needs three things: A light source, an object and an observer. Is your claim that light always bends up from the object and away from the observer at a certain distance? The curve of the light away from the observer would essentially explain why things disappear from view after a certain distance. That is your answer for how a horizon happens, correct?

Yes.

I wrote this in a different thread, but I'll post it here as a response:

Let's take a simple scenario: a sail boat (object), a person (observer) and the Sun (light source). As the sailboat leaves the shore, it sinks below view and eventually cannot be seen. "Bendy light" uses two things to explain that act: first, light always bends away from the observer, so after a certain distance it cannot be seen; second, light bend upward around the object, explaining the sinking illusion. I'm fine with that...you can even change the scenario, if you take a lake with a 15 miles radius, a person standing at any position around the lake could not see an object in the center, the reasoning for that, as explained by "Bendy light" is that since light is always bending away from the observer, it is essentially acting as a trick mirror. Fine. Any time you present a scenario with an object, observer and light source, that explanation seems to fit. Granted, it doesn't explain why light bends upward or away from the observer, but we'll leave that alone for now -- the why is irrelevant as long as it works.

Here is the issue: if the object and the light source are the same thing, the theory falls apart. The simplest example of that is the setting (or rising) Sun. If light is always bending away from the observer (and back around the object moving away from the observer) than it would mean in this scenario that light is curving back towards the light source (the Sun). If light ever curved back toward a light source, you could not see anything, as the light would never reach your eyes.

Not true. As I've said before, the light is convergent on vertical.

You're suggesting that light reaches a limit at some point in the distance? First off, I have no idea why you think that's true and secondly, I don't understand how that opposes what I've written. If it were simply a matter of distance, then a person on a mountain wouldn't be able to see further.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse

« on: May 08, 2009, 09:29:02 AM »

Uh... question:

If the object that gets in between the Sun and the Moon to cause a lunar eclipse is "invisible," and nobody has managed to pinpoint exactly what or where it is, how is it that we are able to predict lunar eclipses with perfect accuracy? 

Please explain how to predict a lunar eclipse without the use of any RE theory.

Please explain how an invisible object can cast a shadow.

It is impossible. This thread is ridiculous. No sane person viewing a lunar eclipse could conclude that the object moving in front of the sun is not the moon. It is clear to me that the person who created the theory is not *well* -- the bigger issue I have is with the people that have seemed to accept the theory as fact.

"Who is the more foolish: the fool or the one who follows him?"

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Thank you!!!!

« on: May 08, 2009, 07:44:46 AM »

I used to work for the conspiracy and i can confirm we have insiders in gps companies.

You are the single best troll I've ever seen on any forum, haha.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One Question: How?

« on: May 08, 2009, 07:43:03 AM »

I suggest PM'ing Daniel(the admin of this fine site) to comment on this.
As far as I know,there was a flat earth society before the age of the internet.

I don't doubt that there was always a small group of people that believed the Earth was flat before the internet. I am strongly suspicious of such a group existing *on*the internet though. Infinite knowledge lies at one's fingertips, so it seems impossible to me. I feel it is more likely that the site represents something else, which if true, I think is very clever. I'm not certain in either direction yet, but in the meantime, I'm finding these debates fascinating on a psychological level.

P.S. I couldn't help but notice your note on Occam's Razor. I find it's placement as a note under the avatar of a member of this forum to be very odd. I'd think almost everything involved with your theory would fall under that category.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 08, 2009, 07:25:48 AM »

Why can't you type out a complete thought? You stated: "light converges with vertical at infinity." There is no point to me responding to that until you clarify specifically what you mean. Use an example if needed.

OK, my example is the graph y=1/x. This converges with the vertical y axis at infinity. This is what light does.

As for the second part, you are suggesting that light is bending in certain directions, which means all vision becomes relative. There is no up and down...it's all space -- if light can bend down, it can also bend up. So, I drew an analogy. If the Earth is flat and after a certain distance light begins to bend upwards (horizon illusion), then it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

Vision is relative to the Earth. There is up and down; they're often referred to as 'up' and 'down'. As we've established, under the Bendy Light Theory, light bends up.

it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

Again, what?

Ok, so let's get on the same page for a moment. Every scenario needs three things: A light source, an object and an observer. Is your claim that light always bends up from the object and away from the observer at a certain distance? The curve of the light away from the observer would essentially explain why things disappear from view after a certain distance. That is your answer for how a horizon happens, correct?

Yes.

I wrote this in a different thread, but I'll post it here as a response:

Let's take a simple scenario: a sail boat (object), a person (observer) and the Sun (light source). As the sailboat leaves the shore, it sinks below view and eventually cannot be seen. "Bendy light" uses two things to explain that act: first, light always bends away from the observer, so after a certain distance it cannot be seen; second, light bend upward around the object, explaining the sinking illusion. I'm fine with that...you can even change the scenario, if you take a lake with a 15 miles radius, a person standing at any position around the lake could not see an object in the center, the reasoning for that, as explained by "Bendy light" is that since light is always bending away from the observer, it is essentially acting as a trick mirror. Fine. Any time you present a scenario with an object, observer and light source, that explanation seems to fit. Granted, it doesn't explain why light bends upward or away from the observer, but we'll leave that alone for now -- the why is irrelevant as long as it works.

Here is the issue: if the object and the light source are the same thing, the theory falls apart. The simplest example of that is the setting (or rising) Sun. If light is always bending away from the observer (and back around the object moving away from the observer) than it would mean in this scenario that light is curving back towards the light source (the Sun). If light ever curved back toward a light source, you could not see anything, as the light would never reach your eyes.

Note: All this explanation does is explain why "Bendy light" is false under your terms. It would also be easy to exploit the aspect of the theory involving light bending upwards at all. I just don't see a point in even touching that...yet.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Did You Become A Flat Earth Believer?

« on: May 08, 2009, 07:23:54 AM »

I didn't believe until i saw with my own eyes the ice wall whilst working amongst the conspiracy first hand. It really is amazing considering everyone thinks the earth is a sphere.

LOL

16

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 02:41:53 PM »

Why can't you type out a complete thought? You stated: "light converges with vertical at infinity." There is no point to me responding to that until you clarify specifically what you mean. Use an example if needed.

OK, my example is the graph y=1/x. This converges with the vertical y axis at infinity. This is what light does.

As for the second part, you are suggesting that light is bending in certain directions, which means all vision becomes relative. There is no up and down...it's all space -- if light can bend down, it can also bend up. So, I drew an analogy. If the Earth is flat and after a certain distance light begins to bend upwards (horizon illusion), then it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

Vision is relative to the Earth. There is up and down; they're often referred to as 'up' and 'down'. As we've established, under the Bendy Light Theory, light bends up.

it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

Again, what?

Ok, so let's get on the same page for a moment. Every scenario needs three things: A light source, an object and an observer. Is your claim that light always bends up from the object and away from the observer at a certain distance? The curve of the light away from the observer would essentially explain why things disappear from view after a certain distance. That is your answer for how a horizon happens, correct?

17

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 02:08:39 PM »

Not really, no.
Draw a picture, if it helps...

No what?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your theory of "bendy light;" if so, please explain it to me. My understanding is that you claim light bends away from the observer and toward the source. Not only is that impossible for obvious reasons, but when dealing with a horizon, it doesn't account for the location of the observer (his altitude). Everything about "bendy light" seems ridiculous to me, so assuming you are not a ridiculous person, I'd hope you could provide me -- in your own words -- an explanation of how it works.

'Bendy Light' is the theory that light bends upwards. Therefore, if you move a certain distance away from an object, the light will have bent up to a degree that it goes above your head. Therefore, if you stand on a stone or something, your head moves up, back into the path of the light.

That's incorrect though. If the light is bending away from the observer, that means it is bending back toward the source. If that's the case, the light would never reach the observer that is standing at a higher altitude.

No it doesn't, it converges with vertical at infinity. Well technically; it more likely just becomes vertical after a bit.

 

Furthermore, let's reverse the scenario and place the observer below ground rather than high above ground. If light bent the way you're claiming, it would then reach an observer below the line of sight, i.e., a 5 ft person standing in a 6 ft ditch could see 100 yards away in any direction.

What?

Why can't you type out a complete thought? You stated: "light converges with vertical at infinity." There is no point to me responding to that until you clarify specifically what you mean. Use an example if needed.

As for the second part, you are suggesting that light is bending in certain directions, which means all vision becomes relative. There is no up and down...it's all space -- if light can bend down, it can also bend up. So, I drew an analogy. If the Earth is flat and after a certain distance light begins to bend upwards (horizon illusion), then it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.

P.S. I'm leaving work and may not have a chance to respond again until tomorrow.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 01:55:59 PM »

Not really, no.
Draw a picture, if it helps...

No what?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your theory of "bendy light;" if so, please explain it to me. My understanding is that you claim light bends away from the observer and toward the source. Not only is that impossible for obvious reasons, but when dealing with a horizon, it doesn't account for the location of the observer (his altitude). Everything about "bendy light" seems ridiculous to me, so assuming you are not a ridiculous person, I'd hope you could provide me -- in your own words -- an explanation of how it works.

'Bendy Light' is the theory that light bends upwards. Therefore, if you move a certain distance away from an object, the light will have bent up to a degree that it goes above your head. Therefore, if you stand on a stone or something, your head moves up, back into the path of the light.

That's incorrect though. If the light is bending away from the observer, that means it is bending back toward the source. If that's the case, the light would never reach the observer that is standing at a higher altitude. Furthermore, let's reverse the scenario and place the observer below ground rather than high above ground. If light bent the way you're claiming, it would then reach an observer below the line of sight, i.e., a 5 ft person standing in a 6 ft ditch could see 100 yards away in any direction.

The point is that the bendy light theory is false: it is painfully forced and it works to answer one question while creating more inconsistencies.

Light does not bend upward and the only reason anyone would ever claim it did is if they wanted to defend the Earth being flat. That's what I find so fascinating about all of this -- if science didn't prove the Earth was round, you would never use such a ridiculous theory to prove the Earth is flat. It only exists as a silly defense, not science.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 01:42:50 PM »

Not really, no.
Draw a picture, if it helps...

No what?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your theory of "bendy light;" if so, please explain it to me. My understanding is that you claim light bends away from the observer and toward the source. Not only is that impossible for obvious reasons, but when dealing with a horizon, it doesn't account for the location of the observer (his altitude). Everything about "bendy light" seems ridiculous to me, so assuming you are not a ridiculous person, I'd hope you could provide me -- in your own words -- an explanation of how it works.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 01:28:26 PM »

If you have a bit of a peer around the rest of the forums, a lot of your questions will be answered.

Please direct me specifically. I found the FAQ very unhelpful. Every answer created a hundred new questions.

I'm willing to bet that I can create questions faster than anyone on these forums is capable of making up answers. I could be the biggest fool in the world, but on a long enough timeline, I'll win any debate we could ever possibly have on this topic.

OK, ready?

Go!

Ok, do you have a preference as to where we start? Maybe I could pick a topic, then you?

Let's start with something simple: the horizon. If the Earth was flat, how is it possible for the Sun to rise or set beyond the horizon? How is it possible that after sailing 10-15 miles off shore, the land you just left has disappeared below sight line (with any tall buildings or mountains still possibly being visible).

How can a horizon exist without a curve?

Note: I do not want to go to the FAQ, I want to engage in an actual conversation with a person who *claims* to believe the Earth is flat.

Depending on who you talk to, this is due to 'Atmospheric (something)'; I can't remember its name as I'm not one of the particularly clued up members, or it's due to the refraction of the light from the sun.

Ok, well let's examine that. Refraction of light is simply the way light is altered when it passes through a certain medium (an ideal example of that is water -- the way your hand may appear to look distorted beneath the surface of water, etc). Unfortunately (for you), that simplistic answer does not satisfy the question. Horizons are standard -- they exist all over the Earth, regardless of the Sun's current position relative to the Earth and regardless of the medium you are viewing them over (land or sea).

We can use that same example: a boat leaving a shore -- the people on the boat will view a sinking land mass behind them and the people on the shore will view a sinking boat. If the boat returns, both participants will view the other object rising; if the boat does not return, it will eventually come around to the exact opposite horizon, at which point it could move back and forth again to create the same affect. The only object where such events would be possible, is a sphere.

Search 'bendy light'.

For future reference, I'm not interested in looking anything up; I'm interested in having a conversation with you. In an attempt to move this along, I did look up "bendy light" and it appears you feel that light bends upward, causing the illusion of a horizon. To be honest with you, I think I actually understand the argument; however, it is severely flawed and can be proven so, seemingly very easily. The first thing I thought of after reading about "bendy light," is: what happens if you are viewing the "sinking boat" from a higher elevation; i.e., if you're in a tall, coastline building, the boat will stay in your sight longer than it would if you were on the shore (same would go if you were sailing in a very tall boat looking back at the shore).

Under the logic of "bendy light," wouldn't that be impossible?

21

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 01:11:55 PM »

If you have a bit of a peer around the rest of the forums, a lot of your questions will be answered.

Please direct me specifically. I found the FAQ very unhelpful. Every answer created a hundred new questions.

I'm willing to bet that I can create questions faster than anyone on these forums is capable of making up answers. I could be the biggest fool in the world, but on a long enough timeline, I'll win any debate we could ever possibly have on this topic.

OK, ready?

Go!

Ok, do you have a preference as to where we start? Maybe I could pick a topic, then you?

Let's start with something simple: the horizon. If the Earth was flat, how is it possible for the Sun to rise or set beyond the horizon? How is it possible that after sailing 10-15 miles off shore, the land you just left has disappeared below sight line (with any tall buildings or mountains still possibly being visible).

How can a horizon exist without a curve?

Note: I do not want to go to the FAQ, I want to engage in an actual conversation with a person who *claims* to believe the Earth is flat.

Depending on who you talk to, this is due to 'Atmospheric (something)'; I can't remember its name as I'm not one of the particularly clued up members, or it's due to the refraction of the light from the sun.

Ok, well let's examine that. Refraction of light is simply the way light is altered when it passes through a certain medium (an ideal example of that is water -- the way your hand may appear to look distorted beneath the surface of water, etc). Unfortunately (for you), that simplistic answer does not satisfy the question. Horizons are standard -- they exist all over the Earth, regardless of the Sun's current position relative to the Earth and regardless of the medium you are viewing them over (land or sea).

We can use that same example: a boat leaving a shore -- the people on the boat will view a sinking land mass behind them and the people on the shore will view a sinking boat. If the boat returns, both participants will view the other object rising; if the boat does not return, it will eventually come around to the exact opposite horizon, at which point it could move back and forth again to create the same affect. The only object where such events would be possible, is a sphere.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: balance and gravity

« on: May 06, 2009, 01:03:17 PM »

In simpler terms, the feeling of falling is when you are moving in relation to the atmosphere. If you remain still, and the atmosphere moves up, you will feel like you are falling.

What do you think is more likely: you jumping to that assumption in an effort to support your belief or that ridiculous answer actually being truthful?

How is it more or less ridiculous than what happens in RE?

I don't want to take over two threads. Let's use the other one.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 12:59:37 PM »

If you have a bit of a peer around the rest of the forums, a lot of your questions will be answered.

Please direct me specifically. I found the FAQ very unhelpful. Every answer created a hundred new questions.

I'm willing to bet that I can create questions faster than anyone on these forums is capable of making up answers. I could be the biggest fool in the world, but on a long enough timeline, I'll win any debate we could ever possibly have on this topic.

OK, ready?

Go!

Ok, do you have a preference as to where we start? Maybe I could pick a topic, then you?

Let's start with something simple: the horizon. If the Earth was flat, how is it possible for the Sun to rise or set beyond the horizon? How is it possible that after sailing 10-15 miles off shore, the land you just left has disappeared below sight line (with any tall buildings or mountains still possibly being visible).

How can a horizon exist without a curve?

Note: I do not want to go to the FAQ, I want to engage in an actual conversation with a person who *claims* to believe the Earth is flat.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: balance and gravity

« on: May 06, 2009, 12:55:21 PM »

In simpler terms, the feeling of falling is when you are moving in relation to the atmosphere. If you remain still, and the atmosphere moves up, you will feel like you are falling.

What do you think is more likely: you jumping to that assumption in an effort to support your belief or that ridiculous answer actually being truthful?

25

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 12:43:06 PM »

If you have a bit of a peer around the rest of the forums, a lot of your questions will be answered.

Please direct me specifically. I found the FAQ very unhelpful. Every answer created a hundred new questions.

I'm willing to bet that I can create questions faster than anyone on these forums is capable of making up answers. I could be the biggest fool in the world, but on a long enough timeline, I'll win any debate we could ever possibly have on this topic.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: balance and gravity

« on: May 06, 2009, 12:38:57 PM »

I'm not sure I understand. He is 100% correct and his point is on topic.

It has no bearing whatsoever on the original question.  Whether gravitation is variable across the globe or not, locally the acceleration is always constant.

Here's another on topic question: If a person jumps off a cliff, why do they feel like they're falling? If instead, the Earth is moving toward them, wouldn't they feel as though they're floating?

Air resistance.  Without an atmosphere they would feel like they're floating.

I don't think that answer satisfies my question. Explain further, please.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: balance and gravity

« on: May 06, 2009, 11:20:09 AM »

The Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of about 9.8/s².

Except its not. The measured "acceleration" varies across the planet.

This alone proves the earth is not flat.

Now GTFO.

Make a thread about it if you have a problem with it.  If you're going to debate in this thread please stay on topic or kindly GTFO yourself, you ignorant moron.

I'm not sure I understand. He is 100% correct and his point is on topic. Here's another on topic question: If a person jumps off a cliff, why do they feel like they're falling? If instead, the Earth is moving toward them, wouldn't they feel as though they're floating?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 10:24:59 AM »

so I find it very odd that I'm even debating this with you.

You are no longer.

Hmm...

29

Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!

« on: May 06, 2009, 08:50:06 AM »

Since the sun is 300 000 times bigger than the Earth, how can it be noon one place on earth and midnight somewhere else? That would be impossible if the earth was flat.

If the sun was 300000 times bigger than the Earth, you may be right. However the sun is much smaller than the Earth.

And where is the evidence of that?

Read the faq, the sun is approx 30 miles diameter, I believe.

All right, I'll play along.

I saw that in the FAQ. The problem is, if you're correct, than it wouldn't be possible to measure the size of the Sun. Both figures would be unproven. What is the point of even giving the Sun a definitive size? Why not just state: For our theory to be correct, the Sun would need to be far smaller than currently estimated?

Edit: Furthermore, if the Sun was over the center of the earth, it would still be impossible for it to be midnight elsewhere. The Sun would always be in view of everyone. Not to mention, the Sun's size does not change in appearance. If you were correct, the Sun would have to gradually shrink in size as it moved further away, rather than sink out of sight as it currently does.

On a personal note, I believe you are essentially trolling everyone anyway, so I find it very odd that I'm even debating this with you.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One Quetion: How?

« on: May 06, 2009, 08:44:44 AM »

What is a quetion?

It's a misspelling for the word "question."