391

Flat Earth General / Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all

« on: January 10, 2013, 07:11:12 PM »

There is no rule against minor spelling mistakes here at the Flat Earth Society Forum. Not everyone here speaks English as a native language, and even those who do may not be fortunate enough to have the same command of it as you do. All we ask is that posts are comprehensible, as this post clearly is.


I won't pretend that I don't prefer proper grammar/spelling, but sticks & stones; any harm at my end is purely self-generated. So I ask you again, please don't memberate.

392

Flat Earth General / Re: Aetheric wind / southern celestial pole

« on: January 10, 2013, 07:04:29 PM »

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?


Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them.  I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.

In short, I believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, and that gravitation and mass are linked. Moreover, I do not believe that Antarctica is a rim continent surrounding the known Earth. Your idea is interesting, but I find the weight of evidence in favour of gravitation due to mass, and Antarctic navigation, more compelling.

393

Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA

« on: January 10, 2013, 06:54:08 PM »

This is absolutely not the point that is being discussed, but rather a silly word game. "Belief" in the Conspiracy (or just about any other belief on anything) is not a requisite for just about anything. Having evidence, or at least a very good explanation, for specific aspects of "FET" is a requisite for useful discussion about FET.

I can believe in anything I like, like the ancient Greek Gods for example, and still argue about modern Physics. But I cannot just "believe" or not in a Conspiracy which fools us all about modern Physics and still argue modern Physics with Conspiracy included.

Congratulations, this is better than what markjo was posting. Unfortunately, I was discussing something with markjo, namely his post, so that is precisely what was being discussed. Moreover, you have provided nothing to support markjo's original claim, which is what I took issue with. Please don't come in here and pretend I've been arguing against a strawman, as opposed to what markjo explicitly said.


Moving on from that, you haven't provided anything to support this new, independent argument that you have presented. For the truth is, those who do not believe in the Conspiracy have provided arguments as to why on many occasions, against both FE'ers and RE'ers. If you take issue with those arguments, counter them. But don't pretend they don't exist.

394

The Lounge / Re: A Friendly Chat

« on: January 10, 2013, 06:38:58 PM »

Reading this thread, it's not hard to see why the FES charity drive isn't going so well...

395

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: The Flat Earth Society needs an anthem

« on: January 10, 2013, 04:38:49 PM »

You know what we need?  A secret handshake.

You know what we need? An active administrator.

There does come a point where this is kind of a dumb reply. What exactly desperately needs doing right now? The forum has a new skin, and there are changes in the works in the background. I'm reasonably active, and although John hasn't been around in a while, he did plenty in the earlier part of the year. The only 'Daniel-level' problem we have right now relates to the server, and that is being sorted.


I think it may be time to drop this as a running joke. It just isn't constructive.

396

Arts & Entertainment / Re: What are you reading?

« on: January 09, 2013, 05:09:03 PM »

I'm reading The Principia Discordia.

Have you read the Illuminatus trilogy Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson?  I swear that I've never done LSD, but after reading those books, I feel like I have.

I plan to, but given how important the Principia Discordia is within that trilogy, I thought it might be worth reading first.

397

Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA

« on: January 09, 2013, 05:07:34 PM »

Actually, the conspiracy is an integral part of FET.  It's what allows FE'ers to dismiss any evidence that contradicts FET (most notably, any otherwise irrefutable evidence provided by the various space agencies of the world).

No it is not, as the several FE'ers who do not believe in the Conspiracy demonstrate. Please stop being so inane; you have no excuse.

In the same way that Hollow Earth Theory believers do not necessarily represent mainstream RET, those several FE'ers who do not believe in the conspiracy do not necessarily represent mainstream FET (if there is such a thing).

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Who is talking about representation? Belief in the Conspiracy is evidently not a requisite for believing that the Earth is flat, as many FE'ers do not believe in the Conspiracy but nevertheless believe that the Earth is flat. Q.E.D.


Furthermore, your comparison is a simple category error. I do not dispute that FE'ers who do not believe in the Conspiracy are FE'ers. They believe that the Earth is flat, ergo, they are FE'ers. Similarly, HE'ers believe that the Earth is round, ergo, they are RE'ers.


Your claim was that "the conspiracy is an integral part of FET". Obviously that is not the case, as above, no more than it is the case that believing the Earth to be hollow is an integral part of RET.

398

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conclusive round earth proof

« on: January 08, 2013, 07:18:06 PM »

Scientists never conclusively showed the Earth to be round. Really. It's an assumption. Nobody ever proved it. It just made sense at the time. Therefore, the burden of proof still belongs to RET.

Since you admit that RET makes sense, then that means that it's the burden of FE'ers to prove that FET makes more sense.

Incorrect. Even assuming this argument was sound, it would refer only to the bolded terms.

399

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Asteroids are Discovered

« on: January 08, 2013, 07:13:51 PM »

Dear Edmond - if you think the answer is attainable via a search engine then it clearly shows you are incapable of basic logical application.  You really have to Google this?  Duuuuuuuude....go back to sleep and wait for your next serving.

You're not Stephen King. Your lackluster attempt to build suspense is only causing myself, and others I'm sure, to lose what little interest there ever was to hear the round-earth explanation for a problem that's only a problem when one tries to make a flat-earth round.

Indeed.


If you have a point to make, make it. If you have a question that needs answering, answer it. Asking a question you supposedly know the answer to only reveals your lame rhetorical gambit. We are bored by this limp-armed gesticulated impression of wit.

400

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: what would it look like?

« on: January 08, 2013, 06:46:56 PM »

That observation is also consistent with the top of a giant starfish or doughnut or snow man -- any shape of sufficient size. Should we assume the earth is any of these shapes? 

No, but if observations do not conflict with the earth being any of those shapes, then you should not dismiss them out of hand.

What is the difference between not dismissing any given model, and not accepting any given model?

It's the difference between disproving a given model and choosing to not even consider a given model.  If you cannot show a reason why a particular model is not true, then there is no reason to assume that the model is false.

It's sort of like the difference between you winning and me losing.  Just because I lose, that does not always mean that you win.  Or, to put it another way, just because you find problems with RET, that does not mean that FET is correct.

Please read my question again markjo, because your response is not really an answer to the question I have asked.

401

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonshrimps - what's the deal?

« on: January 08, 2013, 06:26:03 PM »

no one has been able to explain to me how anything other than light from an outside source can match the observations seen in this photo.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

nothing but an outside source can explain what we are seeing. show me on photo of the moon that shows something that cant be explained by an outside source of light?

The bits that are bright are illuminated by the surface entities in those areas.

402

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: The Flat Earth Society needs an anthem

« on: January 08, 2013, 06:22:35 PM »

The original:


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">THOMAS DOLBY (THE FLAT EARTH)

403

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat earth distances just dont work

« on: January 08, 2013, 06:14:40 PM »

Tintagel, all those flight paths you posted are still wildly different from what they'd be in FE world. You are derailing on inconsequential minutiae in order to sidestep the problem, which you do not address.

The OP posts an objection, and Tintagel shows that the objection is bunk. Somehow, this is FE sidestepping a problem that was never presented in the first place?


Here's a protip for RE'ers: present your argument so we can address it, instead of presenting bunk arguments and then criticising us for not addressing your secret 'real' arguments.

404

Flat Earth General / Re: Aetheric wind / southern celestial pole

« on: January 08, 2013, 05:59:39 PM »

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?


Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

405

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop vs. The FAQ

« on: January 08, 2013, 05:47:33 PM »

This thread is a result of a misunderstanding of the role of the FAQ. I don't agree with everything in the FAQ. No-one could. It is designed to introduce newcomers to the broad collection of models grouped under the term 'Flat Earth Theory', which are all mutually exclusive. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a document enshrining FES dogma. Any FE'er who didn't disagree with anything in the FAQ would be an idiot, because it is obviously self-contradicting if taken to be some kind of doctrine (though I cannot see how any attentive reader would do that).

So change the FAQ. You're the vice-president.

1) My being VP does not entitle me to do what I feel like.


2) Even if it did, your criticism is beyond inane. I have just said what the FAQ is designed to do. Changing it so that it represents my views exclusively will not further that aim. It is designed to introduce newcomers to ideas they are likely to encounter during their time in this forum, NOT to serve as doctrine.


I would like to see the FAQ become shorter and more succinct. However, I do not wish to see it become some sort of FE 'Bible'. It should represent the views of as many FE'ers as possible, whilst still being useful to newcomers.

406

Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA

« on: January 08, 2013, 05:42:53 PM »

You're exactly right, Lord Wilmore!  I shouldn't have said winning.  Because to most people on this planet this was settled long ago.  And the shape of the Earth is history.  Truth won; move on.

You fail to understand a simple criticism, never mind that a more complex one can be leveled against this nonsense. What kind of scientist believes in outright victory?

Actually, the conspiracy is an integral part of FET.  It's what allows FE'ers to dismiss any evidence that contradicts FET (most notably, any otherwise irrefutable evidence provided by the various space agencies of the world).

No it is not, as the several FE'ers who do not believe in the Conspiracy demonstrate. Please stop being so inane; you have no excuse.

407

Flat Earth General / Re: Zetetic method?

« on: January 08, 2013, 05:37:39 PM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2013/jan/03/flat-earth-science-asimov

Is this the zetetic method which also seems to be the scientific method?

Asimov's piece is well-known within this community. However, it ultimately defends the scientific method without any substantive reference to genuine methodological criticisms of the scientific method.

408

Flat Earth General / Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all

« on: January 08, 2013, 05:34:27 PM »

Hi i am interested in science and i have some questions what do you bolive happens if you get to the end of this flat earth ? and if you bolive it an infernet plain what do you say to people who go forward and end up in the same spot (around the world) also do you bolive in gravitons strong nuclear force week nuclear force and electromatic force ?

sorry for spelling I'm dyslexic

Dyslexia doesn't result in inability to use the caps key.

And what exactly results in your inability to either post politely or not at all? Please do not memberate, thanks.

409

Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA

« on: January 03, 2013, 09:46:50 PM »

who is winning in 2013?

'Victory' is not a gerund.

410

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop vs. The FAQ

« on: January 03, 2013, 09:31:20 PM »

This thread is a result of a misunderstanding of the role of the FAQ. I don't agree with everything in the FAQ. No-one could. It is designed to introduce newcomers to the broad collection of models grouped under the term 'Flat Earth Theory', which are all mutually exclusive. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a document enshrining FES dogma. Any FE'er who didn't disagree with anything in the FAQ would be an idiot, because it is obviously self-contradicting if taken to be some kind of doctrine (though I cannot see how any attentive reader would do that).

411

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki Update Subforum?

« on: January 03, 2013, 08:38:18 PM »

I'll add you right away.

412

The Lounge / Re: Alcohol

« on: January 03, 2013, 08:37:09 PM »

You live in coldlands though, so that's understandable. The others have no excuse.

413

The Lounge / Re: Alcohol

« on: January 03, 2013, 08:08:42 PM »

Had some wine, had some port, smoked a pipe with some whisky, now amaretto with ice.

414

The Lounge / Re: A Conversation With My 12 Year Old Self

« on: January 03, 2013, 08:07:47 PM »

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">clever girl


On review, this scene is really badly edited.

415

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why Ban the Burkha?

« on: January 03, 2013, 08:05:24 PM »

I have a feminist friend who refuses to take classes from men, because she hates to see men in power.  She also thinks that rape is worse than genocide/murder. 

I know a number of people like her, and in Santa Cruz its not really demonized.

Yeah, I know this one guy, and he's an asshole. All guys are assholes! Also, I've never seen anyone bother him for it, so therefore, something.


I think that's plenty of anecdotal nonsense for now.


Personally, I am against banning types of clothing. I even have doubts about whether or not it's okay to ban nudity. That's a trickier one. But I also see some fairly black & white use of the word "choose" in this thread, as though choices made without legal compulsion are therefore freely made. That is a gross oversimplification.


The French ban on the niqab strikes me as deeply problematic, for cultural as well as practical reasons. But so does much of the discourse opposing to the ban, which pretends that all choices are free choices, and therefore worthy of the same protection under law. But choosing between expressing oneself and being beaten is not a 'free' choice in any significant sense of that word.


The problem with this legislation is not that it prevents people from making certain choices, but that it prevents people from making choices that ought to be protected under law, as well as choices that should not have to be made.

416

Arts & Entertainment / Re: What are you reading?

« on: January 03, 2013, 07:10:25 PM »

I'm reading The Principia Discordia.

417

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:54:29 PM »

But they can't have Kinder Surprise. So much for their rights-culture.

"in many ways"...


I mean, free-speech is just like Kinder Surprise.

418

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Asteroids are Discovered

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:32:38 PM »

Yes, an astronomer tells the location of the asteroid to another astronomer and that second astronomer accounts for celestial gear shifting and verifies the location of the asteroid.

Wrong

Please, tell us the answer, oh master of Google

419

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: what would it look like?

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:31:22 PM »

That observation is also consistent with the top of a giant starfish or doughnut or snow man -- any shape of sufficient size. Should we assume the earth is any of these shapes? 

No, but if observations do not conflict with the earth being any of those shapes, then you should not dismiss them out of hand.

What is the difference between not dismissing any given model, and not accepting any given model?

420

Flat Earth General / Re: The floor of the universe

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:18:58 PM »

Do you mean an infinite Earth that serves as some sort of 'downward' limit on the universe? In other words, excluding the possibility of a bisecting infinite plane?