Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lord Wilmore

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 341
Flat Earth General / Re: Lady Blount's photograph
« on: January 01, 2013, 10:16:47 PM »
No-one is obligated or even expected to "prove" you wrong. But it is fairly reasonable to ask you to substantiate your claims. If you can't, no matter, but you should expect to be challenged on such points.

It is self evident.

Nothing is self-evident, other than perhaps the self, and even that is disputed. To bring the term into this discussion is idiotic.

Flat Earth General / Re: Scale of the space conspiracy
« on: January 01, 2013, 09:42:56 PM »
So why respond by asserting something he has not denied?

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: complaint about moderator attitude
« on: January 01, 2013, 08:59:39 PM »
I think we're about done here.

Indeed. Ski does not break the rules. Rather, he enforces them, as he unquestionably did in this case. It should also be noted that squevil's concern was very reasonably put, and that he clearly did not intend to antagonise. I am of the view that he was questioning the consistency of enforcement rather than any actual abuse of powers by a moderator. Unfortunately, different mods are going to view offences (and this was an offence) differently. It's as simple as that.

In this case, however, the ban issued really was trivial, and nowhere the extreme end of the Rule Enforcement Guidelines given the infraction. They exist for a reason, and no-one should assume that maximum leniency is the order of the day.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control
« on: January 01, 2013, 08:38:48 PM »
No, you're the one repeating yourself. Tell me how an American militia could counter armoured vehicles.

The same way insurrectionists do in other countries today? I hate to dig up local examples, but hey:

In 1972 itself, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[77] mostly against commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[78][79] While the Official IRA killed approximately 19 soldiers and wounded dozens more in just 1972 mostly though gun attacks according to the CAIN project's Sutton database.

This was all before serious arms flooded in, in a region with a relatively miniscule population and no terrain-related difficulties. It is excruciatingly obvious that given even limited arms, aysmmetric resistance is possible. It's therefore probably best to drop that line of argument, as it is essentially a nerdy irrelevance. The relevant question is what degree of weapons-related freedom is necessary rather than gratuitous.

American gun culture is clearly perverse and deeply problematic. But Americans have a rights-culture that is in many ways enviable. It is amazing and unnerving how often professed progressive, liberal Europeans (in the most awkwardly broad sense of the term) drift toward a vague cultural establishmantarianism.

The Lounge / Re: Dear Wilmore
« on: January 01, 2013, 02:17:08 PM »
Daniel's on holiday, so last night I went to sleep and communicated directly with the Moonshramp, the true masters of the Flat Earth Society. They have told me that Thork is not ready. Alas, I must defer to their luminous wisdom.

RET is no more monolithic than FET is.
Perhaps not, but RET scientific community has reached a consensus while FET community has not.

I'm fairly certain that the consensus among FE'ers is that the Earth is flat...

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Fake Space
« on: December 29, 2012, 09:28:30 PM »
firstly the sceptical enquirer was originally called 'The Zetetic' and traced its descent from phyrro etc, then it changed its name bacause it followed the trend of the sceptic movement then in vogue, after it became milltiant truzi broke off and returned to the zetetic attitue of the original publication, so he did it for branding reasons, though to get away from it. the zetetic scholar is free whereas the sceptical enquirer is not.

So yes I do belive that is true zeteticism compared to rowbotham's halfassed attempt to give his denialism some kind of fancy name.

On what grounds? All you have done is presented a history of this publication, which is long predated by Rowbotham's work. What makes Truzzi's interpretation "true"? ???

Flat Earth Society does not have only one theory about the shape of Earth, there are many theories instead. And none of them is totally consistent, it have several versions, each user may have his own version of it, with individual and/or inedited statements. This all makes this proposal confuse.

I have a question: Are there any books/publications that can explain with more consistency these theories?

I might ask the same question of RE'ers. Is the Earth hollow, or solid?

Is it concave, or convex?

Is it expanding in size, or static?

RET is no more monolithic than FET is.

Flat Earth General / Re: Scale of the space conspiracy
« on: December 29, 2012, 09:10:17 PM »
Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

And, nuclear fusion has definitely been achieved in the laboratory.  Apparently you've never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

I'm not trying to be picky, but these are clearly two different things. This strikes me as intentional dodging.

Flat Earth General / Re: new video
« on: December 29, 2012, 08:45:56 PM »
It's certainly better than the video from those two idiots on TYT.

Yes, much better. Obviously they're in it for giggles, but at least it looks professional. I cannot believe how many people watch TYTs...

Flat Earth General / Re: List of flaws in FET
« on: December 29, 2012, 08:15:48 PM »
Okay now do 5 and 6.  I'm afraid Lord Wilmore didn't understand what I was saying about New Zealanders and their orientation.  Do they look towards Antarctica to see the sun?  Why/why not?

Do the aetheric winds make the sun appear in the northern sky for new zealanders when it fact it is south of them?

The actual position of the Sun is impossible to know without a fully developed theory of aether. The apparent position is determined by the movement of both aether and the Sun itself.

Flat Earth General / Re: RET phantom islands
« on: December 29, 2012, 08:10:15 PM »
I wasn't trying to be snide or dismiss your points out of hand, but I've already agreed several times that that map is diagramming connections between ports and not recorded trajectories.  I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have misrepresented.

I have stated explicitly what you have misrepresented. I am not going to repeat myself ad infinitum just because you are inexplicably "not sure" what I have said.

I'm merely demonstrating that there are established shipping routes between Southern Hemisphere ports.  Tom said that there those routes are not traveled as frequently as Northern Hemisphere routes.  Neither of you have at all explained why that matters (likely because you'd have to assert without warrant that those routes are somehow less predictable), and I provided a direct quote from the source that says that not all maritime traffic is included in their data, only large cargo vessels, and only those equipped with AIS equipment.

The reason for the disparity in traffic is fairly obvious: the largest trading partners in the world are all in the Northern Hemipshere.  It's merely a byproduct of political geography.  It's not because those routes are any less understood.

Who here disputes that such routes exist? Who here has ever disputed that? ???

Quote from: Lord Wilmore
You have not provided any actual data of recorded trajectories or port call data with which I can confirm that distances/travel times are consistent with RET predictions.  You're just assuming that the AIS data used by your source agrees with you.

Not a direct quote, obviously, but I think this is the crux of your argument regarding distance data.  True enough, I do not have such data to show you.  It's expensive.  I'm not suggesting that you have to buy it, but I have little incentive to do so.  The reason is that my original argument is not that I can verify with real data that these distances are accurate.  My original argument (well, my original snide remarks, anyway) was that those who do have the data, and those who rely on such data to get from A to B without getting lost and dying in any number of horrific ways, all agree that the data unambiguously verifies the relationships describes by a globe.

Do they? Or is this an inference you have made, rather than a contention made by any of the sources you refer to?

Would you mind elaborating on this point?  What do you mean by 'functional?' 

Start with Longitude.  It's true that people have been accurately navigating before the invention of AIS.  However, as Longitude details, before the invention of a method to accurately measure lines of longitude, nautical navigation was totally haphazard.  Determining one's location east/west of any reference point was almost completely guesswork.  It's difficult to overstate how significant this ignorance was to every ocean navigator before the end of the 18th century.  It's also difficult to overstate just how common it was for ships to wreck on dangerous shores miles and miles from their intended destinations, or to be forever lost at sea, or for whole crews to starve to death on the open ocean.  Crews that made it to port rarely arrived at their intended destinations.  Those crews were often decimated (+50% mortality rates) from getting lost at sea for weeks at a time. 

The fact that these problems are solved by position measurements that require a round, spinning Earth to have any meaning at all is, in my view, good evidence in favor of a round, spinning Earth.

The previous systems of navigation also assumed a round Earth. The rotundity of the Earth is not the crucial factor here - it's not as if the Earth became round in the 19th century. Rather, instrumentation became more accurate, and the means of travel more reliable. This is a process that has been going on for thousands of years, irrespective of what shape people believed the Earth to be.

Flat Earth General / Re: Lady Blount's photograph
« on: December 29, 2012, 08:01:06 PM »
No-one is obligated or even expected to "prove" you wrong. But it is fairly reasonable to ask you to substantiate your claims. If you can't, no matter, but you should expect to be challenged on such points.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Simulation Argument
« on: December 29, 2012, 07:55:59 PM »
It's been ages since I read about the simulation argument, but isn't the problem with it that the impossibility of such a simulation is one of the three scenarios that Bostrom believes is almost certainly true? As a result, the argument almost automatically descends into a question of its possibility.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Another post your desktop thread
« on: December 29, 2012, 07:37:31 PM »

For whatever reason, 14 just did not sit well with my system, and I didn't care enough to sort it out. So I upgraded to Maya instead, which is the LTS version. Much smoother.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 29, 2012, 07:27:00 PM »
Also, the banner seems to have rest so that 'The Flat Earth Society' is on two lines again.

This is to fix the fact that the banner was too wide on tablet and mobile browsers.  An unfortunate necessity, but I'm open to other solutions.  I didn't want to make the text smaller, so this was the better solution.

Ah, that makes sense. The only solution I can think of is to have two near-identical themes loaded, with one set as default for phones and tablets. Is a mod like this all that is required, or is it more involved?

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 28, 2012, 08:04:26 PM »
Also, the banner seems to have rest so that 'The Flat Earth Society' is on two lines again.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 28, 2012, 08:02:52 PM »
Ok, latest version is running now.  And I've fixed a few of the missing stars and the 'user online' image.  Anything else missing?

As far as I can tell, just the silver stars of the Elder Ones usergroup.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 28, 2012, 10:26:14 AM »
Personally I'd change the board indicators to something else, the FES logos look too crowded in there and even a bit misshapen since they're resized.

Also, this is perhaps the only criticism I would make. Perhaps the compass idea should be resurrected? Though I feel really stingy making any criticisms, as this is such a good job.

Sure, if the theme was modified here after it was installed those modifications will need to be made again.  I snagged the original version of the old theme and used that as my starting point.

I'll still take a look at the css.  Daniel and I can work out reconciling incremental changes from the old theme via email, probably.

Yeah, John put some extra stuff in a while back, which won't be in the original theme. Should all be easy enough for Daniel to find in the images folder.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 28, 2012, 10:19:08 AM »
Some of the newer 'star' images are not appearing either. I think that's something that Daniel needs to sort out, rather than Tintagel.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 28, 2012, 05:37:22 AM »
Think we're ready to go - once it's in place and being used, I am sure that inconsistencies and bugs will be found, but I will squash those as they arise.   All that remains is for me to get the theme files to the admins here, and for them to upload it.

Daniel already knows this was in the works, but I'll let him know that it's finished immediately.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 23, 2012, 03:36:08 AM »
Uploaded a new build, with new (but admittedly not yet perfect, now that I get to see them in place) icons for new posts / no new posts / redirect and some others.  Also updated the logo so that the text isn't stacked.

Apart from minor pixel issues, most of what I'm looking to catch now are bugs that are in the CSS itself - I haven't gone thought all the stylesheets so I'm sure there are places where the old color scheme is hard-coded and doesn't match the new skin.

Probably just one more update before this can be used, so it's coming Real Soon Now (tm) :)

This looks really great.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 19, 2012, 03:58:35 AM »
That's awesome Tintagel! I really appreciate this - it's a really nice thing to do, and this place has been crying out for a new lick of paint. Also, check your PMs.

Announcements / Re: New Forum Theme Competition
« on: December 18, 2012, 06:35:52 PM »
Tintagel gets the best noob award.


The Lounge / Re: A Friendly Chat
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:09:19 PM »
Actually you can teach intelligence, but only to a very small extent, and it usually doesn't work. The rest of it is innate.

If only we lived in Cyrodiil. Plus fire.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Converting to Catholicism
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:07:57 PM »
People who follow Satanism believe in Christ. Are they Christians too?

They follow Christ and can point to the scriptures for their beliefs.

Believe != Follow


The problem with this argument is that by introducing it, you legitimise the arguments of Wardogg and babs. If they believe that Catholics do not follow the teachings of Christ, then by the above argument, they are entitled to claim that Catholics are not Christians.

On the other hand, if the believe/follow distinction is removed, Satanists do kind of end up being Christians (maybe).

I don't think you're going to get an ironclad definition out of such a nebulous load of nonsense, but perhaps anyone who 'believes in Christ and claims to follow his teachings as described in the New Testament' is a suitably qualified solution to the above problem.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Converting to Catholicism
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:03:06 PM »
Read the fucking thread. Muslims also see Christ as an important prophet, but not the Son of God. How many times does this distinction have to be made?

Do Satanists believe otherwise? Genuinely curious. I know Satanists believe broadly in the God of the Christian tradition, but I don't know if that extends to Jesus' status as the son of God.

The Lounge / Re: A Friendly Chat
« on: December 18, 2012, 01:48:46 PM »
I taught Parsifal everything he knows.  I'm still working on repaying my debt to society.
Well, why is Parsifal smarter than you?

Intelligence != knowledge. You can teach knowledge, but not intelligence. Never bring a question to a semantics fight.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Phone decision
« on: December 18, 2012, 01:46:17 PM »
So it's been a couple of days now and the excitement has worn off.

I'm slowly getting used to the new keyboard.
The battery doesn't last as long as my iPhone did but I expected that.
Clicking links on this forum is a less easy as it doesn't always select the one I want but rather one nearby.
Netflix is more unstable.
Firefox is buggy.
And apparently I sound muffled when I talk.

Functionality wise, it still beats the iPhone but it's definitely less stable.

So you're complaining about 3rd party software then?
Well the hardware would be the battery life. Other than that, yeah.

Also: Opera owns. The link issue I had was apparently with FF. I have had no issues with opera.

I have my phone setup the way I like it so yay!

Try Chrome too. I prefer it to the Android FF app, but it's really a question of taste. Also, remember you can fiddle with the look and feel of the phone via different launchers. Just download from the Play Store and apply them. You're often able to adjust things you can't via Sense (or whatever).

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 341