1

Flat Earth General / Re: Why believe in a flat earth?

« on: February 21, 2015, 05:27:18 PM »

Thanks Misero!

Keep voting folks, data is king!!

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Why believe in a flat earth?

« on: February 13, 2015, 07:27:09 PM »

Yeah I must agree - It was a polite request. 

Keep on voting folks!!

3

Flat Earth General / Why believe in a flat earth?

« on: February 11, 2015, 08:16:55 PM »

Hi,

I'm just interested to know why people believe in a flat earth, when surrounded with so much evidence for a spherical one. There's probably more options than 5 so please state your below, if you have other reasons.

I would appreciate round earth people being quiet, in this thread. I do not want this to descend into the usual personal attacks and grammar jibes. If you wish to question someone on a reason, or me about this poll, start a new thread. I'd also appreciate just straight reasons with no follow up comments from others like "yeah your so right" etc etc.

Thanks.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Devolution

« on: April 20, 2014, 12:59:49 PM »

You are in the UK, aren't you?  Do the experiment and post your data.

Why do you have to be in the UK to repeat the experiment??? The conditions can be replicated anywhere in the world with a canal or even a long flat road.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 05:37:00 AM »

I more respect people who say - there is not conspirancy, earth is round, there not chemtrails- it is ok, they live life, in matrix  without "problems".

But people who belive in some conspirancy, and "see" some anomalies, and believe in  naturaly authority, and spontaneous underground leaders, this is for me bigger sheaps that first people.

I  see bad people, and take them as just that, bad people.

Be careful of wasting your time trying to see things that aren't really there. You're just kidding yourself, think about that.

It must feel great to be "someone who knows what's really going on", but be careful stringing little unproven facts together just because your really hoping that people on this forum will respect you. For instance; be careful using the word matrix too much, people will think you took that movie a little to seriously.

Look at everything with a critical eye. That includes evidence for a flat earth.

Have fun on your quest.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 05:14:22 AM »

Don't confuse general corruption in government with hiding some big conspiracy. There is a fair bit of corruption out there, but that doesn't mean the world is flat..

(I do find it very funny that your all so paranoid about something you can't explain. Yet your also in denial about being paranoid)

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 04:59:12 AM »

Wow living with that level of paranoia must be terrible, especially as you don't know why you should even be paranoid. I'm sorry, but I do feel a bit sorry for you.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 04:50:33 AM »

So your basically saying everyone, with any position of authority, anywhere, is in on it?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 04:23:28 AM »

Your going to have to expand on that.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 04:08:53 AM »

They're opposing institutions though aren't they. Deeply religious people tend not like the notions of of our world being a round ball of dust formed by gravity over millions of years. 

That said I'm just suggesting a potential reason, I'd love to hear what an atheist flat earther thinks is going on.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is main reason ?

« on: April 20, 2014, 04:02:13 AM »

Billions and billions of dollars in the pockets of the NASA satanists.

There's one potential reason for you, creationism and religion. NASA are probably the biggest thorn in the side of the mainstream religions.

Galileo was suppressed by the catholic church, and I believe Rowbotham was religious in some form.

Nowadays that has somewhat been forgotten \ no-one on here wants to look like a religious crack pot. So the word conspiracy is a convenient alternative...

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Simple Question

« on: April 15, 2014, 10:34:28 AM »

Hi There,

Please read the below thread where I asked pretty much the same question. You'll see that the society cannot provide credible answers. This is because Samuel Rowbotham hadn't been on any long distance air travel.

Enjoy!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59549.0.html#.U01tmPldXO2

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?

« on: April 06, 2014, 03:40:21 PM »

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Does This Other Flat Earther Website compare?

« on: April 06, 2014, 03:31:54 PM »

Both websites seem to apply the same amount of rational thinking.

Which is very little.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?

« on: April 04, 2014, 04:02:32 PM »

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?

They won't provide you with reliable sources ever. The closest they have is a man how has been dis-proven many times and described as a charlatan (even by the church), Samuel Rowbotham, and a statement made by Galileo who at the time was under duress caused by intimidation from the catholic church, an organization that hasn't done much to make themselves seem trust worthy in the last few years...

The other reason this won't be answered is that the society is terrified of committing to an actual layout of the continents of the earth and has freely admitted they don't know.

[Edit] Source Added - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm

16

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 24, 2013, 04:28:22 AM »

Didn't you say something about checking your facts before making statements?

If you go through my posts you'll see I have a very long temper

I suppose that depends on your definition of "temper". It may be that you're being insulting in a very calm manner, just like I am to you in this thread - that hurts your case rather than help it.

My definition of temper would to not instantly answer someone angrily the first time you post in a thread to them. I try not to do this wherever possible.

but there is no place anywhere for miss-use and casual jokes about autism.

Well, that's, like, your opinion, man. The problem is that you're still the guest here, and we're the hosts. We have both joke and serious threads about the holocaust, rape, nuclear weapons not existing, and even transsexuality. The only thing that's currently off limits is black people.

Do you really think threads like these help people take your society seriously?? Anyone who comes on here, who you might want to take you seriously, and sees joking about rape and the holocaust is going to be repulsed, and if they're not, the problem gets worse.

You are not in the position to come to our playground and tell us what we are and are not allowed to talk about. If that offends you, I'm sure we're all very sorry, but you may want to considering getting over it and/or moving on.

Well this forum doesn't hold my attention very much anyway so it's not difficult for me to move on.

You've made less than a 100 posts. I'm not sure if you realise, but reading through all of them is easy, so there's no point in you lying about their content. Just going through this thread I've found a large number of unfounded accusations (examples: "angry, blind belief" to Adolf, "One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really." to Rushy, "narrow minded and naive" to jroa, "What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples." to Rushy, "he's trolling on here for fun or maybe some kind of personality disorder." about Tom Bishop) - you do spew them left and right, and you do provide no logic/evidence to support them - all it takes to note this is a quick skim through your posts.

You are not using all of these in context, and I think you may need them clarified. Perhaps try reading the other posts in the threads to see where mine fit in.

"Angry, Blind, Belief" - Not directed specifically at him but an example of the type of behaviour I see on this forum sometimes. Not an unfounded accusation at Adolf. An observation about the society in general.

"Death Threats from one of Rowbotham's followers" - The notion of death threats appears to be anecdotal but read the link below:

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm

This is transcript from the court room during the case of the follower I was on about John Hampden. In this case he is found guilty of libel and spreading slander about Alfred Russell Wallace, who disproved the Bedford level experiment. Again I was making comparison between Rushy's (and other members of FE community's) angry behaviour towards me and other RE'ers.

"narrow minded and naive" - Again not specific accusation at jroa, just a warning that for his own sake he should check as must of the information as possible.

"he's trolling on here for fun or maybe some kind of personality disorder." - See bellow.

On top of that, you keep committing logical/informal fallacies - most notably the ad populum (to which I already linked you - hopefully you've actually read it, since you seem to be quite particular about people reading things) and the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (example: "If you care so much about this you simply must be able to defend it and be willing to." aimed at me and previously at others in similar form).

Having read this I'd like to see some more examples, because personally I disagree. The above statement certainly does not "modify the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric" because I wasn't making a counter argument to something that you had said, I was proposing a claim, neigh an opinion on the nature of belief.

• Banning two long-standing members of the forum for making a joke you didn't like;

[/b]

- I didn't like the joke because I don't like people insulting others (or using their condition as a by-word for stupid) for something they can't help. I'm not autistic, but it’s the principle I find offensive. Tausami agreed that:

Rushy is indeed an extremely offensive person. It's part of his persona. You get used to it after a while. I think he's just scared of being boring.

• Telling people they have to put up with your crap, or else they're not actually FE'ers (see above);

I only base my deductions on whether some one is an FEer or not on the answers they choose to give. If I post a thread and the society chooses to ignore it then I may bump it once or twice if I perceive there to be a reason for it and then probably forget about it. As you can see however I find the lack of answers doesn't help the FE case.

• Changing the structure of the upper fora, because you don't like one of the subfora;

- This is only a suggestion to make help the moderators. I posed bluntly but not a demand.

• Appointing different moderators, because you don't like the current ones;

[/b]

- I have never suggested this. I may have said certain moderators have not be fair, but never said any should be removed from their posts. I have asked why there are none or few RE moderators, as this would achieve some balance and help the society's credibility. You should have spotted that reading through my profile.

• Banning FE'ers from using evidence you dislike or consider disproven;

I can't remember the specific instance you refer to, but it does not help the FE cause when one of your members uses bad evidence. If its the case I'm thinking of, Evan used an extract from a source which said itself that the theory it was discussing was shown to be incorrect. In the discussion we were having it weakened the RE case. Perhaps this is not worth a ban, but it surely does not look good for the FE society.

On the subject of Tom Bishop and the soda head account:

I thought very carefully about making this accusation, because of the argument that you and Pyrolizard have suggested, and you may have answered it for me.

• Having Tom Bishop prove to you that one of our old Sodahead troll accounts is not his own account (How do you expect not to be accused of being autistic when you come up with this crap?);

Can you explain specifically what you mean by "our old Sodahead troll accounts"

Are you using it just to troll on another website for fun?? This would compound the points I made above on joking about rape, autism and the holocaust. They are not credible to this society.

It's also pretty harsh that you would use Tom as an alias to cause trouble. [/list]

17

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 23, 2013, 04:27:30 PM »

Thanks for the acknowledgement that there can be a little bias, and that some people need to be warned, these are probably two of the only measured responses I've ever received! You two are perhaps the only two people on here man enough to admit it.

As for this:

Many many sources who I trust say Barak Obama is president and therefore I believe this to be a fact.

You sound like the kind of person who would believe in most of these. You may also want to educate yourself about this. The fact that you know a lot of people who told you about something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not what you heard is true.

That's why I find it strange that people on here get so angry when it's challenged.   

Yes, see, the problem isn't that it's challenged, but how it's challenged. We have no patience for people like you - people who spew unsubstantiated accusations left and right while committing two logical fallacies per sentence. If you want to discuss, do so in a civil manner. Understand that you are in no way privileged here, and that we are not obliged to put up with your quirks.

Unfortunately you are exactly the person I'm on about. If you go through my posts you'll see I have a very long temper, but there is no place anywhere for miss-use and casual jokes about autism. I'm also patient the first thread I posted hasn't really been answered by FE, and I'm still waiting, and I personally do not "spew unsubstantiated accusations left and right". Maybe some do but not me.

18

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 23, 2013, 05:14:48 AM »

You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.

This exactly my point. The lack of credible sources shows the flat earth theory to be incomplete, and thus why should you trust it? If you treated it with as much scepticism as you do RE science you would see it does not hold up.

I just can't understand this angry, blind, belief in something that doesn't answer all the questions, or even tries.     

You keep talking about the lack of credible sources.
Barack Obama is the president of the USA. Would you like a credible source to prove that?
Angry, blind belief? I'm pretty calm about it. I wouldn't call it blind either.

I have a many credible sources. The American people, The Senate, House of Repressentitives,  and everyone else who knows anything about America, even your a source. This is eactly my point. Many many sources who I trust say Barak Obama is president and therefore I believe this to be a fact. Not very many sources, none of whom I trust, say the earth is flat and thus I view the theory with scepticism. That's why I find it strange that people on here get so angry when it's challenged.   

Your pretty calm about it, but some people on this forum are not, and sometimes the mods fail to pick up on this.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Glad to see this! Interested in finding out more.

« on: September 23, 2013, 03:58:55 AM »

Hi Yaakov,

Be mindful of the difference between distrusting governments, and distrusting mainstream science. There is seperation between them which FE'er on here do not always make.

You may hear people talking about physics as if it been fed to the population by a government trying cover something up.  If you look at RE scientists like Galileo, and Copernicus you'll see that they were not acting as part of any government and were actually heretics at the time.

I suppose it could be argued that the great scientists of our time, Stephen Hawking, Einstein, etc are part of this "conspiracy", but I've seen FE'ers use them in their arguements so they dont seem to think they are.

Be careful not to fall into this trap, just because NASA and the ESA, etc are government funded, it doesn't mean everything they say is lies.

Just a word of caution. You seem like your looking at the sources and their credibility which is deffinately the best way to go about it.

20

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 23, 2013, 03:20:15 AM »

You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.

This exactly my point. The lack of credible sources shows the flat earth theory to be incomplete, and thus why should you trust it? If you treated it with as much scepticism as you do RE science you would see it does not hold up.

I just can't understand this angry, blind, belief in something that doesn't answer all the questions, or even tries.     

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Evidence.

« on: September 23, 2013, 01:05:19 AM »

This is begining to drift of topic a little bit. The question is; What is the evidence?

I think REphoenix is after the sources, links to acedemic papers, etc? So that they can be critiqued?

22

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 11:32:45 PM »

Not to say that I'm upset about it, I could have been more elaborate in my questioning and Jroa certainly could have been much less polite about it, but it is just a question asked.  Two questions, even, that's more than you put in.

My question was much more specific than yours.

Correction, so many FE people here disliking my behavior. What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples. I challenge my own beliefs by choice as much as possible to make sure I'm happy with them. In the couple of months I've been on this forum I've happily reinforced my belief that the earth is round and NASA aren't lying about what they do. 

When someone challenges my beliefs, I do not shout and scream at them and call them stupid. The only person I've lost my temper with on here is you, I've found other peoples posts to be annoying but I've been civil to them because they haven't been overly offensive.

One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really.

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful." Really? That is really the best logical reason you could come up with? People don't like you because you're just so correct all the time? No, we don't like you because you have the social aptitude of a doorknob. I've tried my best to explain that to you in plain, simple words. It's why the question of whether or not you are autistic came up, because, and I'm being completely serious, not being able to see even text-based social cues is a common symptom of autism. A lot of adults go through life not knowing they have it, so you might need to see a proper physician and get yourself checked.

Again, when have I been insulting to anyone else on this forum?? "Autistic", "social skills of a doorknob" : - You are being highly hypocritical. Your one of the most offensive people I've encountered on here.

Its not my fault you get angry when someone challenges flat earth well and start flaming them on here, your discrediting the other people with your point of view by talking a like a neanderthal.

23

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 04:58:06 PM »

I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.

You are a d*ck.  If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.

And, yes.  Go back to the beginning.  I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content.  I got an apology from him.  Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.

Actually we're now making a genuine accusation about you. Why were you letting them get away with casually joking about autism and using it to imply I'm stupid. I've not seen any other moderator letting something like this slide.

At the start of the thread I was trying to say that there are a lot of low content posts from both sides. But most of the time they only seem to get flagged when being made by an RE'er.

This:

Are you implying I'm autistic???

Well, are you?

Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.

I am sincerely trying not to be disrespectful here.  However, I can not refrain from pointing out that arguing that you are not stupid, while failing to show that you know how a question mark works, seems rather ironic.  Not in the way that rottingroom thinks ironic means, but in the real way.  Seriously, I am really not trying to make you look stupid.

I'm typing quite quickly, and being a human being, I may miss a question mark here and there.

Seriously your comment is a bit petty.

24

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 04:55:09 PM »

Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.

Asking you a question is not low content. See, this is why you're running into trouble up here. You have very poor judgement about everyone and seem to be expectant of everyone here to tolerate your behavior. It seems like so many people disliking your behavior would be indicative of a necessary change to it. Instead you just start shooting off insults and then get even angrier when the one mod here let's you know that it's not acceptable to do that. Quite frankly I think this forum owes you nothing less than a boot up your ass, but I suppose that's why jroa's the mod here, not me.

Correction, so many FE people here disliking my behavior. What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples. I challenge my own beliefs by choice as much as possible to make sure I'm happy with them. In the couple of months I've been on this forum I've happily reinforced my belief that the earth is round and NASA aren't lying about what they do. 

When someone challenges my beliefs, I do not shout and scream at them and call them stupid. The only person I've lost my temper with on here is you, I've found other peoples posts to be annoying but I've been civil to them because they haven't been overly offensive.

One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really.

25

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 04:38:49 PM »

I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.

You are a d*ck.  If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.

And, yes.  Go back to the beginning.  I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content.  I got an apology from him.  Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.

Actually we're now making a genuine accusation about you. Why were you letting them get away with casually joking about autism and using it to imply I'm stupid. I've not seen any other moderator letting something like this slide.

At the start of the thread I was trying to say that there are a lot of low content posts from both sides. But most of the time they only seem to get flagged when being made by an RE'er.

This:

Are you implying I'm autistic???

Well, are you?

Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.

26

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 04:25:25 PM »

I have been civil up until this point.  However, I am sick and tired of you noobs acting like you are entitled to something. 

You come here, spewing RET into the threads, and get butt hurt when you post low content posts and we ask you to stop.  Seriously, what the heck is wrong with you people?

I said this earlier on this point.

Unfortunately when you have a website purveying such radical believes you will attract opposition or """"perma noobs""" as you like to call them. If you care so much about this idea, you must be able to put up with this and defend your case politely with proven facts and credible sources, if nothing else than for your own good.

By just accepting these sources, Rowbotham, etc,  and not checking them yourself or reading about their credibility, your being just as narrow minded and naive as you claim RE'ers are.

27

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 04:10:49 PM »

Being a jackass is being a jackass.  So is stirring up trouble. 

Please do not do either.

I started asking direct but nonetheless valid questions. Just because they are difficult to answer does not mean they are intended to stir up trouble, more to ask you to consider a different point of view, in order to perhaps make you accept mine or find facts that might reinforce your own. Just because I pursue answers with vigor and back up my own with strong evidence does not mean I am stirring up trouble, it means I make a strong challenge to the the flat earth system, one that you should accept and try to answer with credible facts for your own well being. The only jackasses here are those making jokes about autism.

For what good its worth I've reported all three of you.

28

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 03:59:38 PM »

>Acts like a jackass
>wonders why the mods don't give a shit

Oh I'm perfectly on topic. The topic is moderation, or lack thereof. You've shown how bad it is in this very thread, ignoring terrible comments by your own and then joining in on the fun.

It seems to me that there is plenty of moderation now. It just so happens that you were the one being a naughty rule-breaker in the upper forums all along and now you're all "waaaah!" when the mods tell you to stop.

Responding to a personal attack is hardly being a jackass.

29

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 03:50:40 PM »

I asked if the comment was aimed at me, and you then asked directly. I take offense to that, because not only am I not, but your implying autism is some form of stupidity, it isn't. An autistic person would find this offensive the same way they would if you called them a retard. The fact you find it so hilarious makes the entire thing worse. Your a disgusting human being.

I'd like both of you banned.

You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.

I don't see any big words in this post, I'm not sure how you didn't understand what was being said.

What's that supposed to mean?? I explained why I took offense because you asked in obvious sarcasm. Your talking like a small child in a playground, your pathetic.

Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?

Are you autistic as well?  There is a debate section, yet you want to debate everywhere.  If you are autistic, we will make special accommodations for you.  Just let us know what your special needs are.

Really, this is your serious and professional FES? You're a terrible mod.

Welcome to the FES, where the mods are terrible and perma noobs are worse.

Now, let's get this back on topic.

The topic is bias moderation towards FE'er. The entirety of whats just been said and your behavior throughout is an example of that.

You don't have to believe in the flatness to love the forum, or make friends, or respect our humble little internet home.

And yes, I think making jokes is OK.

Making jokes about autism is not OK. If you said something like this in the work place you'd be disciplined and even fired.

30

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Moderation

« on: September 22, 2013, 03:38:33 PM »

Danger, I have no clue what they are talking about with the accusations of autism either. It is offensive.

I take offense that you are taking offense to things you yourself made up in the first place. You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.

I asked if the comment was aimed at me, and you then asked directly. I take offense to that, because not only am I not, but your implying autism is some form of stupidity, it isn't. An autistic person would find this offensive the same way they would if you called them a retard. The fact you find it so hilarious makes the entire thing worse. Your a disgusting human being.

I'd like both of you banned.

Did someone post a link to TFES on an autism forum?

Are you implying I'm autistic??? This is grossly offensive to me and anyone who actually has autism.

You should be banned if this is the case.

Are you this much fun on every forum you join? You've joined TFES, and you seem to hate TFES. I don't get it.

jroa has been really fair in his moderation. He admits when he makes a mistake and seems to do whatever he can to keep the peace around here. You've been nothing but rude and hateful towards him, for no good reason.

You should try visiting the Kerbal Space Program forum. I'm way more fun on there, mainly because people aren't offensive.

I'd like this thread kept open so Adolf Hipster can answer my questions on critiquing sources. Move it to the General section if you must.

Also:

People, just stop it.  If danger2007 has autism, it is not his fault.  Please look for other reasons to tease him other than whether or not he is autistic.

Let's get this back on track.

Nobody should be teasing eachother at all. I thought this was a forum for civilized debate?? This is exactly the point I was making about bias moderation.