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 - Stash

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 363
61
Everything we were told is a lie.

Cool story. My Dad got Covid in January of this year. His Vitamin D was perfect. The Docs didn't recommend D supplements because he was already right where you're supposed to be. Like most things, too much is as bad as too little. I guess that makes your whole story fiction.

62
And WHO was responsible for changing 'Firmament', into 'sky' or 'expanse'?

Who else? The liars of 'astronomy', of course!

Wrong again. The author of the Easton's Bible Dictionary was not an astronomer. He was a minister:

Matthew George Easton (3 June 1823 – 27 February 1894) was a Scottish minister and writer. His most known work is the Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1893), later known as Easton's Bible Dictionary.
The English translations of two of Franz Delitzsch's commentaries are among his other works.
He studied at the University of Glasgow[1] and served as minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Girvan 1848, then Darvel 1861, then Free Church Darvel 1876 to death on the amalgamation of the RPC and Free Church of Scotland.

Why would they care what the Bible says, anyway? Because it called it the Firmament, and before that, the Hebrews called it the raqia, which means DOME.

Wrong again. From Hebrew Word Lessons

Raqia: SKY, Expanse
Nov 20, 2022
hebrewwordlessons
SKY/EXPANSE- Raqia, Masculine Noun (Strong’s 7549); Raqa, Verb (Strong’s 7554).

Root: רקע
Sounds like: ra’kee’ah

And not only wrong again, you already lost the firmament debate using your own criteria, So I'm not sure why you just keep carrying on like this. It's over. Your done and dusted. Defeated, no rockets are slamming into a firmament because it's not there.

Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate. You have exactly what you asked for and you know what? You're a very dishonest person. You have something factual that goes against your narrative, exactly what you asked for, and you still stomp your feet. That makes you a liar. You're not seeking any truth and you will openly lie, in front of anyone and everyone. Utterly shameful. I hope you're ok with your dishonesty. I certainly am not.

Good! This debate is ended. Uncut video of a rocket going to space and back. No firmament to stop the rocket.

Turbonium, you've lost, but jolly good game.

But thanks for playing.

63
Objects must be PUT into motion, first of all. This dirtbag writes up a 'Law' of motion, that deliberately IGNORES how objects must be PUT into motion!!  Are you kidding!

Before you go on an unsupported rant about something you know nothing about, you might want to actually do a little poking around. What you wrote makes you seem like a total idiot. I'm not saying you are an idiot, just hat a post like yours is derived from idiocy.

Note the original Latin and translation from Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), originally published in 1687 of Lex II, Law II. See the underlined bit:

Lex I
First law of motion in original Latin
Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

Law I
English translation of First law of Motion
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Lex II
Second law of motion in original Latin 
Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.                           

LAW II
English translation of  Second  law of Motion
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Lex III
Third  law of motion in original Latin
Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.

Law III
English translation of  Third law of Motion 
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

64
If you have read all the passages which mention the Firmament, you'll realize that it is a solid object, a vast domed barrier above Earth. Not the sky, not some endless 'space', not rainclouds,  based on their various descriptions of it, as a whole thing.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the bible like that has anything to do with anything. But in any case, you can stop going on and on about your bible theories and firmament stuff because you alreddy lost. According to your very own experiment requirements to settle the debate as to whether the firmament exists or not, that criteria has been met. Based upon the results you have lost.

Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate. You have exactly what you asked for and you know what? You're a very dishonest person. You have something factual that goes against your narrative, exactly what you asked for, and you still stomp your feet. That makes you a liar. You're not seeking any truth and you will openly lie, in front of anyone and everyone. Utterly shameful. I hope you're ok with your dishonesty. I certainly am not.

Good! This debate is ended. Uncut video of a rocket going to space and back. No firmament to stop the rocket.

Turbonium, you've lost, but jolly good game.

But thanks for playing.

65
And here's the part you still don't get - energy that is created out of nothing, dies out after it is used up, spent away. The energy was used to make the brick go upward into air, that's where it is all spent, and dies out. Energy is not an infinite power, it is always limited and dies out, even our Sun will die out, one day.

Can you predict when the brick "dies out" and begins to fall back to earth? Knowing the weight of the brick, the amount of force to toss it upward, known air resistance, even wind? Can you do that? We can. Jack has already showed you. Can you predict when it will die out™? How would you calculate that?

66
Anyway, we all know that the Firmament is a solid object, nothing else BUT a solid object.

From Christianity.com:
According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary, from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki'a, or raqia. This word means simply "expansion.” It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also hear the use of this particular word.

Now, back to the matter at hand...

No, I'm the one who challenges you ball Earth believers to settle who is the liar, and who is telling the truth, by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not, a Firmament above the Earth.

This is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. But when your side refuses to do it, having the rockets to do it, we know who the liar is already, and it's not the one who wants to prove who is right, it s the one who refuses to prove who is right, because they know it's not them.

Yes, this is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. You proposed that we use our rockets to "settle the debate". So here you go, to "settle the debate" as you put it. You asked to send rockets upward to see if they punch a firmament. Here’s one, an uncut rocket flight straight up to 307k feet. It meets your criteria to end the debate and then some:


UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Here's another one to "settle the debate":
351,000 feet...


Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate. You have exactly what you asked for and you know what? You're a very dishonest person. You have something factual that goes against your narrative, exactly what you asked for, and you still stomp your feet. That makes you a liar. You're not seeking any truth and you will openly lie, in front of anyone and everyone. Utterly shameful. I hope you're ok with your dishonesty. I certainly am not.

67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Roe V. Wade
« on: April 15, 2023, 09:51:37 PM »
All I know is that a grandma who got married and divorced 4 times I bet is charming as all get out and hoot to be around. Stories aplenty.

One husband was probably a gambler perpetually and unsuccessfully chasing the big score - Always at the track playin' the ponies. Another turned out to be a grifter, usually one step in front of the law until he was not. Another, tired of the shenanigans of always packing it in with down beats, she married a Doctor, a plastic surgeon with B-D level celebrity clients in Miami. Total stability, picket fence kind of gig. She found it incredibly boring and soul crushing so she ran off with an Elvis Impersonator/Minister with a drive-thru marriage service located 4 blocks south of the Vegas strip. She found out he was schtooping a showgirl at the Riviera, so she left him for a life better worth living without the hassle of boy baggage. Now she is happy, living in a mid-Florida retirement community, trundling around the grounds in her custom golf cart, utterly elated and satisfied to just hook up with any blue hair she finds fetching. No commitments...Perfect!

68
That's the main reason the brick slows down and stops going up, because the initial force which MADE it go up into air, dies out, and the brick slows down and stops, within air, and it's greater mass and density than air, cause it to fall back to the surface.

Simple as that.

Quite simply, what causes this "dies out" you speak of?

69
Here's another one to "settle the debate":

351,000 feet...



I guess now the firmament must be at 352,000 feet over Texas...

70
Look at all these videos, showing a rocket, in the far distance, when last seen, or last seen on those videos, anyway. 

No, I'm the one who challenges you ball Earth believers to settle who is the liar, and who is telling the truth, by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not, a Firmament above the Earth.

This is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. But when your side refuses to do it, having the rockets to do it, we know who the liar is already, and it's not the one who wants to prove who is right, it s the one who refuses to prove who is right, because they know it's not them.

So here you go, to "settle the debate" as you put it. You asked to send rockets upward to see if they punch a firmament. Here’s one, an uncut rocket flight straight up to 307k feet. It meets your criteria to end the debate and then some:


UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate, So I think we’re all in agreement now - There is no firmament.

Look at clips of rockets in daylight skies, when there are CLOUDS present, not like this one, in a cloudless sky.  The clouds are a reference point for a rocket's altitude, in general, at the time...

Flying up though clouds, or beside clouds, or slightly above clouds, means that rockets are flying low altitudes, then, and not much higher afterwards, either.

If they haven't removed the best examples of it on video, that is...

What are you talking about? A rocket, uncut video, launches straight up to 300k+ feet, which is exactly what you asked for to "settle the debate".

Then when presented with this you talk about clouds? What in the ever-loving, goal post moving, straight up lying sack of shit are you talking about? You've never seen a cloudless sky? Never? I've seen many. Do you live in a box?

So now you're lying. I mean straight up, stare you right in the face kind of lying. You've singlehandedly made the entire FE movement look like a bunch of liars. Here we go again...

Turbo: We can settle this firmament existence thing once and for all if you people will just send a rocket up and see if it smacks into anything!
Anyone: We have already. Lots and lots of them. From different countries, different companies, from all over the world...
Turbo: NO, THOSE ARE ALL FAAAAAKKKKE!!!!
Anyone: Well, here's an uncut vid of a rocket, with Bill Shatner, no less, as a passenger going straight up to 307k feet and straight back down. Didn't smack into anything there, so...
Turbo: NO, THAT IS FAAAAAKKKKE!!!!
Anyone: But I thought you said we could settle this if we sent up some rockets?
Turbo: I DID! BUT THESE ROCKETS I ASKED FOR ARE FAAAAAKKKE!!!

You're a straight up liar and should be ashamed of yourself.

71
Yet the part you NEVER see, are never ALLOWED to see, is where they crash to Earth, when their fuel is spent.

That's the weirdest argument I think I've yet to see. "They are lying because they don't show you something that didn't happen." How does that work in your world?

First, let's get the bizarre out of the way, you're assuming they do crash into the sea. How do you know that they do?
Second, you're straight up calling people liars for not showing you something that didn't happen. How does that work in your world?

72
Look at all these videos, showing a rocket, in the far distance, when last seen, or last seen on those videos, anyway. 

No, I'm the one who challenges you ball Earth believers to settle who is the liar, and who is telling the truth, by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not, a Firmament above the Earth.

This is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. But when your side refuses to do it, having the rockets to do it, we know who the liar is already, and it's not the one who wants to prove who is right, it s the one who refuses to prove who is right, because they know it's not them.

So here you go, to "settle the debate" as you put it. You asked to send rockets upward to see if they punch a firmament. Here’s one, an uncut rocket flight straight up to 307k feet. It meets your criteria to end the debate and then some:


UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate, So I think we’re all in agreement now - There is no firmament.

73
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Clearing the Muddle that is Jesus
« on: April 14, 2023, 12:38:06 PM »

I would say that this place is proof that some people don't just say, "so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"

It's filled with those exact people.

I actually don't know any here. If there were some, those people would just say, "the book says...done..."

No one does, or very few and far between. I actually see it more on FE, maybe because there's way more evidence for GE. There's just a ton of FE, "...conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy...indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination...shuts book."
Someone providing evidence and disagreeing with you are not the people you describe. It may just feel that way because they are disagreeing with you. Which is natural.
People here generally provide justification for their views. The quality of said justifications may at times be questionable, but at least they are there. And you'll often find that there is a tremendous amount of pushback against anyone who tries to just, "because I said so," without evidence type of folks if they do come ambling about. You'll also find a few of us GEr's who push back on other GEr's who do that or have shit arguments, in essence, GEr's defending FE.

You see, in order for facts to be facts, they must be observable.

One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact.

I see. So I could stare at the sun taking notes until I eventually start to go blind, write down all my observations, and... submit it to a review panel, who instead of verifying the facts as observed and coming to a newer consensus, they go with established dogma, and categorically reject everything I observed. Yes, this sounds very scientific.

You're strawmannig your way right through this as usual. If you have your notes with measurements, documented observational/experimental techniques that are repeatable, show a solid body of evidence, clearly demonstrating that you have extremely compelling evidence to overturn a massive body of evidence and experimentation that already exists, people will take notice. They will repeat your work with the attempt to falsify (What science does) your results and then see what the outcomes are. Happens all the time. That's why GR still exists because people have been trying to falsify it for nearing a century. So far it has held up. Though we keep doing so as more revelations come to the fore, more knowledge, better equipment, etc., and will continue to do so. That is science.

You saying that rainbows arc meets none of the above criteria.


Oh look, water has to be pumped, and as much as you can get it to turn, water doesn't remain on top.

One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact. If the world were to rely on just your experience and your observations as "proven" or "fact", we might as well be back in the bronze age.

We got out of the Bronze Age because people using their own observations, acted on those and made things. Had there been a review panel in the Bronze Age like there is today, we would still have:
1. Rubbing mud on people's eyes as medicine
2. No running water
3. No  power. All your cool computer stuff? All movies? Books? Games? Gone.
4. More importantly no private toilets or clean water. Wanna use a sponge to wipe your ass while several other men watch you do your business? Wanna die of some easily treatable disease because of awful water?
 
These consensus reviewers aren't part of science. They are gatekeepers to the free exchange of ideas. All that actually matters is one person's observations (and that they are not insane, and can make accurate observations). Hopefully they repeat those and their conclusions aren't distorted. But even insane observations are better than groupthink.


Again, you're just strawmannig away. A veritable clear-cutting buzzsaw of made-up absolutes. Everything is so black & white with you. No sense of nuance whatsoever. All that matters is one person's observartions? Fine, I've never observed god. Therefore god does not exist. Boom! Done. All should take my one observation as absolute truth. No if's, ands, or buts.

You do realize that many, many things are not created by committee, right? Just because large swaths of reality disagree wit you doesn't make you right and that it's just that the "groupthink" has its thumb on your temple. You may just be wrong. Maybe you're insane and can't make accurate observations. Has that ever occurred to you?

Everything is not a one size fits all gig. Why you seem to think so is just bizarre. Pro tip, some of your insane, ridiculous notions based up your "observations" may actually be a smoldering hot mess of utter garbage. But somehow your ego won't allow you actually examine it and see that to be the case. Because every opinion you have with just your "observation" as evidence, to you, seems to be golden and spot on and unquestionably correct.

You're not special. You have to operate under the same rules the rest of us do: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think I'll start with Oracle of Tao: Sidequests. I'm even gonna go with the hardback. It's in my cart now.

74
So taking the typical route of refusing to provide any explanation for how this would work on a FE, and instead throwing out the same refuted BS against the RE?

It works on a level over distance because our eyes lose the distant light back to them which creates a narrow view top to bottom just as the eyes do when you reach a pinpoint vanishing point.

Light to dark creates the illusion of a horizon line.
This would be impossible on a downward curvature no matter how big people pretend their global Earth is.

Why limited to just top to bottom? Why not side to side? Or all around, for that matter, considering that one's eye is a ball?

75
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Happiness of heart and soul
« on: April 14, 2023, 08:48:39 AM »
Former Muslims
Former Muslims or ex-Muslims are people who were Muslims, but subsequently left Islam. Although their numbers have increased, ex-Muslims still face ostracism or retaliation from their families and communities due to beliefs about apostasy in Islam.[1] Depending on what country they reside in, with 23 countries having apostacy listed as a punishable crime (13 of which consider it to be a capital offense).[2]













76
So we have "outer space" that only pictures of NASA can verify.

I'm not sure what it will take for you to open your eyes to an actual big wide world out there. For the millionth time, it's not just evil NASA...



And jhis isn't even close to all of them.

Additionally, you do realize that there are 100's of thousands, if not millions of amateur astrophotographers, amateur meteorologists, amateur astronomers, HAM radio operators, sky gazers, on and on and on, that all have nothing to do with evil NASA and can validate their observations with one another across the board, across nations and borders? And everyone these days, especially with the web, can cross validate their observations across inter-disciplines and out with them. One doesn't even need a NASA or the dozens of other world-wide companies and agencies to validate observations. How do you not get this?

For you, it always has to go back to pretty much everyone on the planet, excepting you, is in on the global NWO masonic lizard people conspiracy. You're essentially the only person not involved.

77
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Roe V. Wade
« on: April 14, 2023, 07:46:12 AM »
Interesting point; the very young, married-off girl is essentially raised, indoctrinated into the relationship. Hence the durational impact. I think there's some truth to that.

I pin almost everything back to voting & war. If you can vote and be sent off to war at 18, then the drinking age should be 18. If we don't let individuals vote or go off to war to kill or be killed then we should't allow people to legally marry under 18.
'Age of consent' for sexual relations is a little bit trickier, but I'm leaning into 18 as well. A 40 year old guy dating and having sex with an 18 year old kinds seems creepy, but alas, consenting adults, so I have to put my creepy meter aside. But a 40 year old guy with a 16 year old, a high school sophomore, I can't abide. Maybe in this space, if the girl (or guy) is 16, the other person can be no older than X and consent is allowed.

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Clearing the Muddle that is Jesus
« on: April 14, 2023, 07:19:34 AM »
No, I mean, the goto for people who can't do actual research is to look at a dictionary.

 "Dictionary.com says this:
Quote
flat-earther
(flat-ur-ther)
n.
1. a person who adheres to the idea that the earth is flat.
2. a person who clings to an idea or theory that has long been proved wrong.
so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"

I would say that this place is proof that some people don't just say, "so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"

You see, in order for facts to be facts, they must be observable.

One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact.

Oh look, water has to be pumped, and as much as you can get it to turn, water doesn't remain on top.

One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact. If the world were to rely on just your experience and your observations as "proven" or "fact", we might as well be back in the bronze age.

(Aside: Out of your 17 books, which one would you recommend to me?)

79
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?
« on: April 13, 2023, 04:25:55 PM »
I'm just here to dumb this all down - Didn't we figure all this out back in the 70's with Renée Richards?

https://nypost.com/2022/06/22/chris-evert-recalls-renee-richards-match-to-discuss-trans-athletes/

Quote
“For Renee Richards, who I really admire, to come out and say, ‘Now, I think it would be wrong for me to compete’ … she said, ‘Because if I was 25, I would wipe everyone off the court.’ Those are quotes that she said. This isn’t me saying them.”

In 2019, Richards told Sports Illustrated that she would have won Wimbledon had she competed in her 20s.

“It’s just about the physicalities of the body. It has nothing to do with anything else than the physicalities of the body. I support transgender people very, very much,” Evert said. “But, at some point you have to look at science and medicine, and look at that statistic, rather than ‘Wouldn’t it be nice to include transgenders into women’s sports?'”

You would think it has been settled already.

A lot of the athletic orgs are now coming to their senses, but there's still a ways to go.

I think there should just be a simple answer to the sports issue, it's just A or B and whoever loses just has to suck it up put the issue to bed and move on.

1) Identifying as, no chemical transition yet, chromosomes decide. Get that one out of the way. Male chromo plays male, female chromo plays female. End of story. There shouldn't be an issue there.

Macro: Transitioning or transitioned with steroids/hormones or whatever is done chemically, surgery or no surgery, surgery doesn't matter:

A) Allowed to compete cross-chromo
B) Not allowed to compete cross-chromo and from an advantage standpoint, *maybe can't compete intra-chromo, I'll get to this

Fairness/Greatest Happiness Principle, just pick B, stick to it and be done with it. Don't care if fully transitioned makes someone all but a new female or male for everything, weaker, stronger whatever, just follow chromo. When you make the choice to chemically transition there are consequences good and bad. The good, feel better about yourself, etc. The bad, can't cross-chromo compete.

*May just have to consider steroid/hormone transition therapy, whatever these chems are, as banned substances. You choose to ingest them, you don't compete. At all. Just like banned roids today. Thinking example, Woman transitioning/transitioned, all jacked up on roids/male hormones, stays competing intra-chromo with women = Unfair advantage.

So to make things easy™, B = Choose to chem treat yourself = Banned substance use = Can't compete. At all. Period.

We make the call, stick to it and the chips will fall where they may. Just end the debate. There will be winners and losers, but there are always winners and losers.

As for the other stuff, idk. Just trying to get at least sports out of the way.

My cold-hearted thought of the day.

80
Flat Earth General / Re: FES = Controlled Opposition
« on: April 13, 2023, 12:58:36 PM »
I have spent here many years and there are plenty people here who can confirm that there was never such idiotic accusation towards me during these many years...

Yes, you are correct, throughout your many years here there have been many confirmed accusations from plenty of people regarding your idiocy.

C'mon Timmy, give up the goose. We all know who you really are.

I live in Croatia, Timmy lives where? Does he live in Croatia too? Only if that were be a fact there would be a bit of sanity in your idiotic accusations. Everyone's IP address is clearly visible to the administration of this forum and i have never used VPN or tor browser or anything like that... So, you have nothing except your desperation and brazen lies... I really pity you...

You just saying you've never used a VPN means nothing. Especially considering your track record.

VPN only protects you from other people being able to see what stuff you're doing or looking it.
It doesn't protect you on a malware site as the encryption tunnel allows no one to see what you're doing but you're going on the site and they can install malware on your laptop as they get into that encryption tunnel.

Ain't talking about malware protection. I'm talking about IP masking.

81
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support Ron DeSantis?
« on: April 13, 2023, 12:57:09 PM »
I watched 8 minutes of it. I'm pretty sure she is a psychopath.

Back in 2020 when she first did her "whistleblowing" I thought I remembered that eventually her claims were exposed to be somewhat dubious? I kinda feel like I didn't put too much credence into her claims at some point. I could be confusing her with 1 of a 10,000 whistleblowers on all sides though...2020 seems like a friggin' lifetime ago.

82
Flat Earth General / Re: FES = Controlled Opposition
« on: April 13, 2023, 11:03:13 AM »
I have spent here many years and there are plenty people here who can confirm that there was never such idiotic accusation towards me during these many years...

Yes, you are correct, throughout your many years here there have been many confirmed accusations from plenty of people regarding your idiocy.

C'mon Timmy, give up the goose. We all know who you really are.

I live in Croatia, Timmy lives where? Does he live in Croatia too? Only if that were be a fact there would be a bit of sanity in your idiotic accusations. Everyone's IP address is clearly visible to the administration of this forum and i have never used VPN or tor browser or anything like that... So, you have nothing except your desperation and brazen lies... I really pity you...

You just saying you've never used a VPN means nothing. Especially considering your track record.

83
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91627.msg2400410#msg2400410

What am I supposed to do with this link? When I click on it nothing new or insightful occurs.

Then click this link again (there are two new videos there) : https://forumla.freeforums.net/thread/36/human-trafficking-child-abuse?page=2

Why do you just continually copy/paste links with zero context from a very shady site that fortunately no one ever goes to or you saddle up to some other ridiculous meme or post without even blinking? Case in point...

CIA follows everything, everything you can imagine.

They did not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society, because they had too busy for some business.



What is the source of this information? Every day is harder and harder to find videos like these 
... because pedophiles are in hurry to put them under the rug

You realize that you have zero credibility, right? None at all. All you do is just jump on anything that fits your narrative without even so much as a single critical thinking neuron firing. All you do is see something, then spam it all over the place, not even caring whether to question it.

30 seconds of searching, verifying, would have revealed this:

OMG, THEY RAPED AN ENTIRE FAMILY.  ON A BOAT.



You don't even bother. You can't even be bothered. You're just a spammer. That's why zero people click on your spammy malware links because everyone knows you never even bother to think things through, let a lone vet them. Whether it's your spammy links or just camping on to someone else stupid post, you're just so lazy and you represent everything wrong with the folks who scream, "Do your own research!".

You’re just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to pick up the bill.

85
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?
« on: April 13, 2023, 09:37:19 AM »
I'm just here to dumb this all down - Didn't we figure all this out back in the 70's with Renée Richards?

86
Flat Earth General / Re: FES = Controlled Opposition
« on: April 13, 2023, 09:29:07 AM »
I have spent here many years and there are plenty people here who can confirm that there was never such idiotic accusation towards me during these many years...

Yes, you are correct, throughout your many years here there have been many confirmed accusations from plenty of people regarding your idiocy.

C'mon Timmy, give up the goose. We all know who you really are.

87
Explain how this would fit FEM

What's the impossible part?

Looks like a GoPro with a fisheye lens attached to a balloon. I'm not sure any shape of the earth would be relevant.

88
Flat Earth General / Re: FES = Controlled Opposition
« on: April 13, 2023, 06:54:44 AM »
This https://forumla.freeforums.net/thread/20/geocentrizam-heliocentrizam?page=2

Again, zero original thoughts. Not even putting in the effort to copy/pasta, just a link to some hyper-fringe forum with a whopping total of 11 members - Just shy of a dozen idiots all in one place. Let's keep them there.


89
I found this shocking video of cikljamas in the wild...


90
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Roe V. Wade
« on: April 13, 2023, 06:32:10 AM »
Prior to heavy abortion, childbirth was relatively inexpensive...

What is "heavy abortion" and when did start?

For all the rest of your stats, we need sources. For instance:

Marriage Minimum age in 50 states:

- 6 states have no official minimum age, but still require either parental consent, court approval or both: California, Michigan, Mississippi, - New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington.
- 2 states have a minimum age of 15: Hawaii and Kansas.
- 26 states have a minimum age of 16.
- 9 states have a minimum age of 17.
- 7 states have a minimum age of 18, which is the same as their general age: Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

See how just puking stats out of your mouth without substantiation leads to distrust in everything you offer. "Opinions" are unnecessary and unwanted when talking about the specifics of real life matters and stats. You need to back these things up.

Case in point above. 26 states are still "sweet sixteen" which for some reason you think is somehow better than an older age without any reasoning or facts associated with your drivel. Only 7 states are 18.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 363