1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove me wrong

« on: July 17, 2007, 03:16:40 PM »

1: Ships slowly dissappear over the horizon. If the earth was flat, this would not happen.

See Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. Ships disappear from the bottom up due to the natural laws of perspective.

See these threads which cover this issue extensivelly and which show that the natural laws of perspective are gravely misunderstood my Mr. Rowbotham and that they cannot explain the sinking ship phenomenon (or better yet, of the sinking skyline phenomeon).

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15589.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15483.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15463.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15417.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15422.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13526.0

You will find that in all instances FEers took off without responding to the rebuttals which destroyed their arguments. You will also find that Tom repeats himself endlessly, despite the fact that his answers have been demolished as much as anything ever could be. Enjoy.

Oh and Daniel just says things for shits and giggles, don't think he's serious.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Temperature variations on the RE globe

« on: July 16, 2007, 01:40:37 PM »

lol it's a proof of principle experiment. the lamp is not the sun and the paper is not the earth (and i would suspect that the room temperature was above zero when they did the experiment soo.. no i wouldn't think they ever recorded sub-zero temperatures). you simply asked how it's possible that there can be temperature variations based on angle of incidence and why this angle matters. well there you go, i'd explain it in plain english but you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding when considering basic concepts so feel free to do the experiment for yourself.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Temperature variations on the RE globe

« on: July 16, 2007, 01:24:39 PM »

lol please tell me you're joking Tom...

here's a simple experiment you can do for yourself to prove that slanted rays of light do not heat objects as quickly as direct rays. have fun.
http://education.arm.gov/teacherslounge/lessons/equator.stm

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Truthism?

« on: July 14, 2007, 05:47:11 PM »

Has anyone ever seen this? I LOLd.

http://www.truthism.com/

My favourite part:

You can see the Reptilians via meditating, using hallucinogenic drugs, and sleep paralysis. However, these are the fourth-dimensional Reptilians, not the third-dimensional ones.

Anyway, enjoy the laughs.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunsets

« on: July 14, 2007, 01:56:19 PM »

Check out this picture I took a few minutes later.

lol yeah, I knew he was lying like a little bitch when he said he took the photograph.. one must wonder what else he lies about

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Very Very Funny South Park Clip

« on: July 13, 2007, 09:11:08 PM »

lol very, very funny either way. thanks for that.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "A Question About Rowbotham"

« on: July 13, 2007, 09:09:32 PM »

I hope not... but with all the morons out there who knows, it's possible some of them are his. Then again, if that guy was anything like Tom is (or pretends to be) how the hell would he ever have gotten laid?? I mean.. come on..

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 13, 2007, 04:30:57 PM »

Tom, was there a purpose to that, besides giving me a headache?

It shows that with distance, the lower portion of a receding object is increasingly lost with perspective, exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

lol Tom, you're using a LOW QUALITY IMAGE. For the love of God look at the pixelation on that thing when you zoom in. How stupid are you? That woman isn't farther away than 100 meters. I've seen people from a MUCH MUCH greater distance and still the remained normally proportional without their legs turning into stumps. Furthermore, your argument (or rather Rowbotham's -- but I swear you must be his reincarnation or otherwise doing a great job of imitating him) is based on a very poor understanding of vanishing poits and of how humans perceive the world. I've already addressed this twice, each time without getting an answer.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 13, 2007, 03:02:49 PM »

LOL! That post is so representative of Tom's style.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Data in the FAQ for the diameter and circumference of the flat earth.

« on: July 13, 2007, 02:57:02 PM »

LOL - PS read my sig...you really don't have a clue do you...  hehe.....

The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. Here is a direct quote from Copernicus himself:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as

hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
[/list]

Theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.

lol you idiot, notice how he says hypotheses and you say theories? In science those are nowhere near synonymous.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's a good question.

« on: July 13, 2007, 12:10:49 AM »

First of all it's "you're" not "your" .. go back to school and learn to spell. Second of all, take a few mins and look around this site. The users are overwhelmingly REers, and the only people who believe in a flat earth, if there are any, don't typically debate. Tom Bishop I'm not too sure about... but anyway. Now tell you what kid, lose the attitude, shut up, and start reading a little before you post again. If you're lucky, you might learn something - such as how you'd be able to come to the conclusion that the earth is round if you didn't have NASA helping you out. You'd be surprised - despite the fact that they're right, most arrogant little shits like you that come here wouldn't be able to adequatelly defend a round earth if their lives depended on it.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dome Earth

« on: July 13, 2007, 12:02:46 AM »

A dome is a half-sphere

Not necessarily. A dome can also look like an upsidedown saucer. Depends on precisely what kind of shape your dome has. As I said in your earlier post, the dome idea would be incompatible with both FE and RE ideas.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: More on the religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism of Rowbotham

« on: July 12, 2007, 08:49:00 PM »

You mean "it's" right? Since you're using a short form of "it is". Thinking before you post is hard.. I know. Go back to grade school and learn the basics of your own language.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: More on the religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism of Rowbotham

« on: July 12, 2007, 08:27:45 PM »

Haha yeah, I was thinking that too. That guy abuses the shit out of the comma and the run-on sentence. I wouldn't expect him to organize his thoughts any better though. I mean... he's an eccentric religious fundamentalist with idioic theories, not a man of reason. I have no high expectations of him.

That aside, does anyone else notice how much Tom sounds like him though? Not so much with run-on sentences and all that, but with how he says things, the kinds of words and expressions he uses etc. lol if there was one man on earth today who could be said to be Rowbotham's reincarnation, it would definitelly have to be Tom.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / More on the religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism of Rowbotham

« on: July 12, 2007, 05:29:07 PM »

So Roundy had a thread a little while back about some aspects of ENaG which pointed to Rowbotham being a biblical literalist. Looking at the end of chapter 20, while seraching for a list of diagrams, I stumbled upon some more stuff which I thought was kind of funny, almost too good to be true, and which illustrates Roundy's point further. I thought I'd post some of key 'passages' for you. Enjoy:

Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture.

The process--the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true. If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy.

Umm.. wait a minute.. so if someone in the bible would claim something about the natural world and it would happen that it was so, then suddenly everything else must also be true? This guy relishes logical fallacies doesn't he? Well.. that's one way to tell people never to question the bible again...

The Christian will be greatly strengthened, and his mind more completely satisfied, by having it in his power to demonstrate that the Scriptures are philosophically true, than he could possibly be by the simple belief in their truthfulness unsupported by practical evidence. On the other hand, the atheist or the disbeliever in the Scriptures, who is met by the Christian on purely scientific grounds, will be led to listen with more respect, and to pay more regard to the reasons advanced than he would concede to the purely religious belief or to any argument founded upon faith alone. If it can be shown to the atheistical or unbelieving philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories have no practical foundation, but are fallacious both in their premises and conclusions, and that all the literal expressions in the Scriptures which have reference to natural phenomena are demonstrably true, he will, of necessity, as a truth-seeker, if he should have so avowed himself, and for very shame as a man, be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, if the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman.

He cannot fail to see, and will not be slow to admit, that all the theories which speculative adventurous philosophers have advanced are nothing better than treacherous quick-sands, into which many of the deepest thinkers have been engulphed and possibly lost. By this process of mental concatenation many highly intelligent minds have been led to renounce and desert the ranks of atheism and speculative philosophy, and to rejoin or enlist in the army of Christian soldiers and devotees.

And now for my personal favourite:

To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono.

If that isn't biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism then I don't know what the hell is. Yes, Rowbotham does state that we should believe these things not because of faith but because they have been demonstrated. I think he's full of shit there, and just trying to pose as legitimate and scientific. It's the same thing you see with all these centres for intelligent design today: "Oh we're not claiming these things simply out of faith, no no.. the science says so." Get the fuck outa here..

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ

« on: July 12, 2007, 02:24:45 PM »

The conspiracy is beyond credibility.

I think the conspiracy is possible only from the philosophical standpoint as it were, along with every other overreaching conspiracy of incredible proportions out there. I mean that in the sense that if it truly is a grand super well orchestrated conspiracy then it is by definition good enough to pull the wool over our eyes no matter what evidence we bring forth (anything can be incorporated into showing just how far the conspiracy has spread). Because of that you could never truly disprove it. Kinda like.. unicorns or fairies. That does not make its exitence even remotely likely however. Possible, strictly speaking, but by no means probable. For all practical purposes it is beyond credibility in my opinion.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 12, 2007, 01:59:50 PM »

In what is described, should a ship's hull not be the last thing seen? Should it not follow something similar to the black lines instead of simply "sinking" as it meets the horizon. I would assume the ship's mast and such would be the first things to become distorted and affected by the curvature of the earth but this doesn't appear to be so.

Divito is quite right when he says that things should angle away from an obsever due to the curvature of the earth and in fact they do. Schematically speaking, the black lines are the correct representations. However you must consider how slight this phenomenon is in order to realize why things appear as if they're simply just sinking and not "tilting" away. Consider for a moment that you are standing on top of the earth. Your body is normal to the surface and corresponds to a 90 degree position. As a ship sails farther away it will angle away from you such that once it is 1/4 of the way around the earth it will be aligned to 0 degrees. Here's a a basic diagram just to make sure we're on the same page:



Now, the circumferece of the earth is 40,000 km (I'm rounding down a bit here, the approximation is good enough however). This means that from the observer's position to the boat there is a distance of 40,000/4 = 10,000 km. Now 10,000 km correspond to a 90 degree change in the boat's orientation relative to the observer. This means that there is a change of 1 degree in the boat's orientation approximatelly every 10,000/90 = 111 km. Objects 'sink' below the horizon long before this. If you recall, the image of the Toronto skyline showed about 250-300 feet obscured at a distance of approx 50 km. This means that the skyline is angling away at just about under half of a degree in these pictures. Hardly noticeable by an standard. With a ship it would be even less noticeable, since it would "sink" sooner. I hope that answers your question.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 12, 2007, 11:01:59 AM »

You're absolutelly right Divito. On a sphere that is indeed what happens. That is however over much greater distances than the lamp post argument or the woman in the dress argument or any other Rowbotham puts forward. Rowbotham argues that this is how perspective works on a flat plane. What I'm trying to show is that it is plain bullshit.

I wasn't really referring to Rowbotham. I was merely trying to understand why a ship's hull would disappear first on a spherical earth, because that doesn't make sense. Lemme find the numbers for the curvature and try and make a picture to scale.

Hmm.. I think I know what you're asking and how to answer it but I'll wait for your diagram first.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 12, 2007, 10:46:57 AM »

You're absolutelly right Divito. On a sphere that is indeed what happens. That is however over much greater distances than the lamp post argument or the woman in the dress argument or any other Rowbotham puts forward. Rowbotham argues that this is how perspective works on a flat plane. What I'm trying to show is that it is plain bullshit.

EDIT: Remember: he's using these vanishing point laws over what he argues is a flat plane. He's arguing that straight parallel lines as perceived by the human eye should not behave as if they converge on one and the same vanishing point when in fact they do. And things over a great distance angle away because the 'imaginary lines they trace as they move away' are not truly straight parallel lines, but rather curved lines which follow the curvature of the earth. Do you see what I'm getting at?

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 12, 2007, 10:35:13 AM »

While we're on the subject, I will add a bit to the criticism that Communist started here by attacking how Rowbotham deals with vanishing points (which I've done before briefly but was ignored).

--

From ENaG:

A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.


 
--

Lord have mercy, what a load of crap. The angles Rowbotham describes arise simply as a result of how we perceive the world. A,W,E must not be the same angle as C,H,E for it to be the true vanishing point. Not even close. A,B and C,D must indeed converge at the same point H, and A,B will approach this point at a greater angle because it is farther away from the eye-line than C,D. The fact that our eyes percieve this to be the case is what allows us to perceive depth correctly and to judge our spatial position with respect to other objects accuratelly. If you look at a picture I've labelled:



You can clearly see that the line A (which is farther away from the eye-line) will converge at the vanishing point (H) at a greater angle than the line C. This is to be EXPECTED. It is how we accuratelly perceive the world. In fact only lines which are equidistant from the eye-line will approach the vanishing point at the same angle. All other lines will approach at different angles and rightly so, else the world would appear radically different.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies

« on: July 12, 2007, 09:59:15 AM »

lol Tom, objects don't change proportions as they get farther away. The problem with Rowbotham's diagram is that base section of the street lamp decreases disproportionaly to the rest of the lamp itself. I took a very brief look at it in paint and in the first lamp, the base section is roughly 25% of the total, in the second it is roughly 23% of the total, the third 19% and so on. What Communist is showing that distinctive parts of an object get smaller as the object moves away in proportion with the rest of the object.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Universe

« on: July 12, 2007, 09:40:18 AM »

I was not getting technically philisophical at all, and I'm not sure what I said that made you so boldly assume so. I'm just saying that they showed what evidence they had for the round Earth creation. But they didn't show the other side of the debate. So, they have what is apparently valid evidence, and thusly, the next logical step is for the flat Earth theory to disprove that evidence. You have still disproved nothing.


~D-Draw

Apologies if I misinterpreted your statement. No the show itself defintielly doesn't disprove FE and of course its aim isn't to do so (that is, it doesn't take FE specifically point by point showing everything that is wrong with it and comparing it to the evidence they're putting forward). I guess the comment I was initially trying to make is that it is under no obligation to show the "other side of the debate" since RE vs FE isn't a real scientific debate to being with. The debate here I think is more for amusement puroses than anything else (though I can't speak for everyone). My point was that the fact that the earth is round has been scientifically proven already (prior to this show ever being made), ergo there really isn't anything left for the show to disprove with respect to that particular idea. A handful of hardheaded people with an inability to think, challenging a position for reasons that don't stand up to any scrutiny does not make for a legitimate debate - not a scientific one.

It shows the side supported by evidence. By your approach we could say: evolution does not disprove the babylonian creation myth, or the egyptian creation myth, or the judeo-christian one etc etc. because it only shows one side of the argument.

Evolution isn't a creation theory, so it wouldn't disprove any of those things.

You're right of course that evolution does not deal with how life started, I was not being specific enough in my statement. Evolution doesn't disprove the idea of creation itself, but I think it does disprove certain key aspects of various creation myths as told. For instance, the judeo-christian creation story teaches that man was created from scratch in his present anatomical form by a supernatural deity. Evolution, or rather the evidence for evolution, shows very clearly that man evolved from other life forms and is not a product of intelligent design as described in that myth. So I think, scienitifically speaking, that evolution disproves that aspect of the creation myth. Other areas of science of course disprove other aspects (i.e. the order in which things appear, how long it took, how long ago it happened etc).

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dome Earth

« on: July 12, 2007, 08:11:30 AM »

Two problems immediatelly come to mind for me when considering a dome earth. I'm sure there's probably more but here goes:

1. Although it would sort of take care of the horizon problem, it wouldn't do the trick completelly. This is because the curvature would be far less pronounced. The 'sinking effects' discussed would take a lot longer to happen. The curvature would necessarily have to be less prononced (i.e. you couldnt just have half of the sphere) because that would leave you with half the eath missing.. Unless you were willing to say that everything is only half as big as we think it is. Otherwise with the size of the world and the curvature required to make objects on the horizon behave as they do, I think you'd find that the world would inevitably 'curves back onto itself'. A sphere would be the only explanation.

2. You'd have to do away with the concept of a UA. This is because at any point in the world except the tip of the dome, the gravitational vector would not be perpendicular to the ground but rather on an angle. This would introduce horizontal gravitational forces which would become more pronounced the further out you went from the centre. I think someone might notice. If you want to do away with the UA and just stick with good old gravity, which FEers reject to begin with, you run into the curious question of why gravity isn't making all this matter assume the most stable form possible: the sphere.

So in conclusion: my opinion is that a dome would propably introduce even more problems than it solves.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Universe

« on: July 10, 2007, 11:50:00 PM »

I've been watching it. The show didn't disprove the flat Earth theory, because it only showed one side.

~D-Draw

It shows the side supported by evidence. By your approach we could say: evolution does not disprove the babylonian creation myth, or the egyptian creation myth, or the judeo-christian one etc etc. because it only shows one side of the argument. Well.. it shows the argument that is supported by scientific evidence. I don't believe you'd endorse teaching every single creation myth in a science class alongside evolution just because some people may believe it and refuse to change their views in the face of evidence, would u? This is no different.

Evolution does not disprove anything, only displaces the creation myth and thusly requisites evidence on the part of the creation myth to either disprove its competitor or prove itself more wholly.

That's kind of why this whole thing is here. For debate. Congrats. You have proven nothing.

~D-Draw

I meant 'prove' (or disprove) only in as far as anything could ever be scientifically proven (or disproven). Strictly speaking nothing can ever be absolutelly proven. I cannot prove that the world wasn't created by magical unicorns 2 weeks ago and that everything prior to that: history, our memories etc. aren't just an illusion ultimately ammounting to a grand cosmic joke. I do have massive ammounts of evidence indicating otherwise though.  If you wanna get all 'philosophy of knowledge' on me and say that ultimatelly no point is ever anything more than a debate, that's fine. It's technically correct I suppose and I accept that, but that being said I think half of the time it's just half-baked philosophy (in the sense that relativelly unintelligent people often tend to use it as an excuse for rejecting science - I am by no means saying this is you btw). So again I would say that the fact that the earth is round has been proven to as great a degree as it is possible to actually 'prove' anything in science. In the same way, evolution is as true as anything else we know in science (though the fine details continue to be refined and I suspect and hope that this will continue on).

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More Gravity Anyone?

« on: July 10, 2007, 11:22:29 PM »

Is it just me or does this gravity vs. acceleration question come up every other day? For the love of god...

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Universe

« on: July 10, 2007, 07:15:52 PM »

I've been watching it. The show didn't disprove the flat Earth theory, because it only showed one side.

~D-Draw

It shows the side supported by evidence. By your approach we could say: evolution does not disprove the babylonian creation myth, or the egyptian creation myth, or the judeo-christian one etc etc. because it only shows one side of the argument. Well.. it shows the argument that is supported by scientific evidence. I don't believe you'd endorse teaching every single creation myth in a science class alongside evolution just because some people may believe it and refuse to change their views in the face of evidence, would u? This is no different.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides, yet again.

« on: July 10, 2007, 06:58:52 PM »

Indeed. Excellent example given by Max. If I may just add to that to explain it in terms of the gravitational vectors (and stealing from that website I posted earlier since it does a good job):

At virtually every point except directly underneath the moon, the gravitational vector is at an angle to the surface of the water (it is not normal to it). This means it can be broken into two components: a vertical and a horizontal. The vertical component does nothing, because as you correctly pointed out, it would have to be stronger than earth's gravitational pull to actually raise the water up. However, the horizontal component is free to act and does indeed have an effect. It causes the water to move towards the centre thus causing the bulge (by 'squeezing the water that way' so to speak). The effect of gravity on the waterdrop on your finger behaves in much the same way. So does the centrifugal force on the other side of the planet.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides, yet again.

« on: July 10, 2007, 05:44:41 PM »

Thanks for the corrections Max. Tom please don't respond that it still doesn't add up to more than 9.8 m/s². We already know that. Go to that link I've posted and try to actually understand how the bulges are created (unfortunatelly some figures seem to be missing, but the written explanation is clear enough).

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Response to "REers answer this"

« on: July 10, 2007, 05:40:09 PM »

Wait, why are people actually arguing with narcberry? Doesn't he just come here to screw around?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides, yet again.

« on: July 10, 2007, 05:35:32 PM »

Like the common REer, instead of thinking you yourself, you scurry off to the internet in search of irrelevant material you can post to avoid having to admit defeat. I don't care how many illustrations you post; a schematic proves nothing.

..says the master of copy and paste? How about a rebuttal to my perspective post without copying and pasting irrelevant material that I've already debunked before you start talking shit huh? Oh, and did you even look at the link I posted?