Government protected wall of ice - lol wut?

Quote from: rooster on October 08, 2011, 03:49:01 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 08, 2011, 03:25:40 PM

Quote from: rooster on October 08, 2011, 03:01:18 PM

I don't think it's just an ice wall sitting on the water. You'd have to traverse very far across freezing terrain first. So it doesn't really need to be protected as no one goes there.

People do go to Antarctica.

By "there" I mean the ice wall. People go to Antartica, but not all the way to the wall.

People here routinely say that Antarctica and the ice wall the same thing.  But, let's assume that Antarctica is not part of the ice wall.  I have yet to read a plausible explanation as to why we can not go there.

Because on the other side of the wall are wildlings and mysterious race of walking dead known as "The Others". Why would you want to go there?

Freezing terrain + ice wall = Antartica.

I really don't know how much clearer I can be.

By "there" I mean the ice wall. People go to Antartica, but not all the way to the wall.

 

Quote from: rooster on October 08, 2011, 04:11:31 PM

Freezing terrain + ice wall = Antartica.

I really don't know how much clearer I can be.

Quote from: rooster on October 08, 2011, 03:49:01 PM

By "there" I mean the ice wall. People go to Antartica, but not all the way to the wall.

 

She means that the ice wall may not be right on the coast of Antarctica, but further back, probably past miles and miles of frozen wasteland. By the way, I know a great English tutor, if you're interested.

English may not be my native language, but I fail to see any errors that I made in your quote of my post.  Would you point them out to me please.

English may not be my native language, but I fail to see any errors that I made in your quote of my post.  Would you point them out to me please.

You posted three confused faces. There aren't any errors in those, so I was explaining why what I assume you think is a contradiction in rooster's posts actually is not.

In one post, she claims that the ice wall and Antarctica are the same.  In the previous post, she claimed that people have gone to Antarctica, but not the ice wall.  This does seem confusing to me.

If you are saying that the ice wall is connected to Antarctica, but too far inland for us to reach, then why would your theory need an ice wall.  The water would not reach it.

In one post, she claims that the ice wall and Antarctica are the same.  In the previous post, she claimed that people have gone to Antarctica, but not the ice wall.  This does seem confusing to me.

Ah, it seems that your problem is with math, not English. What she said was: "freezing terrain + ice wall = Antarctica" which would mean that the wall is but one component of Antarctica, not that they are interchangeable.

If you are saying that the ice wall is connected to Antarctica, but too far inland for us to reach, then why would your theory need an ice wall.  The water would not reach it.

In this case, the coast of Antarctica would be the "wall", as far as the water level is concerned. I see no need for another wall beyond that.

Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

There's a very recent thread about this. Find and read it if you want our answers to this.

Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 05:32:07 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

There's a very recent thread about this. Find and read it if you want our answers to this.

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

The way you say "our answers" is as if all you FEtards can actually agree on something. And yet there are still FEtards who claim that the ice wall is guarded day and night, in direct contradiction with what you have said.

Quote from: Tausami on October 09, 2011, 06:28:04 AM

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 05:32:07 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

There's a very recent thread about this. Find and read it if you want our answers to this.

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

The way you say "our answers" is as if all you FEtards can actually agree on something. And yet there are still FEtards who claim that the ice wall is guarded day and night, in direct contradiction with what you have said.

Can you find an example of a serious believer saying that they believe this with certainty?

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 07:59:15 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 09, 2011, 06:28:04 AM

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 05:32:07 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

There's a very recent thread about this. Find and read it if you want our answers to this.

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:30:03 PM

Any posts beyond this one are redundant.

The way you say "our answers" is as if all you FEtards can actually agree on something. And yet there are still FEtards who claim that the ice wall is guarded day and night, in direct contradiction with what you have said.

Can you find an example of a serious believer saying that they believe this with certainty?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0 This one jumps immediately to mind. Just for clarity, how am I to tell the difference between serious believers and fake believers when they all sound equally ridiculous?

It can be difficult. Dioptimus Prime left before I joined, so I'm not sure about him.

It can be difficult. Dioptimus Prime left before I joined, so I'm not sure about him.

Well the thread has been stickied so I'm thinking that, unless this website stickies troll threads, the example stands as an example of a serious FEtard who believes in ice wall ninjas.

Can you find an example of a serious believer saying that they believe this with certainty?

FErs say every thing with certainty.  As if we are retards for not having seen it first.  I can point you to many posts, but I really do not see the reason.

Quote from: Particle Person on October 09, 2011, 10:29:26 AM

It can be difficult. Dioptimus Prime left before I joined, so I'm not sure about him.

Well the thread has been stickied so I'm thinking that, unless this website stickies troll threads, the example stands as an example of a serious FEtard who believes in ice wall ninjas.

Then you are welcome to bring this up with Dioptimus Prime the next time he's around. I wouldn't get too excited about that opportunity, though.
Trying to make others responsible for his claims, on the other hand, won't get you far around here. We've had serious REtards (Do you now see the irony of the nickname you use for us? I hope you do.) claim that compasses point towards gravity, that "magnetic West" is a direction, and that you can see the Earth's curvature from 3000 metres above sea level. If I were to hold you accountable for all these claims, I would conclude you're not very bright.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 02:39:03 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on October 09, 2011, 10:29:26 AM

It can be difficult. Dioptimus Prime left before I joined, so I'm not sure about him.

Well the thread has been stickied so I'm thinking that, unless this website stickies troll threads, the example stands as an example of a serious FEtard who believes in ice wall ninjas.

Then you are welcome to bring this up with Dioptimus Prime the next time he's around. I wouldn't get too excited about that opportunity, though.
Trying to make others responsible for his claims, on the other hand, won't get you far around here. We've had serious REtards (Do you now see the irony of the nickname you use for us? I hope you do.) claim that compasses point towards gravity, that "magnetic West" is a direction, and that you can see the Earth's curvature from 3000 metres above sea level. If I were to hold you accountable for all these claims, I would conclude you're not very bright.

I am an REtard.  Please do not make fun of me.  why are you so cruel?

I am an REtard.  Please do not make fun of me.  why are you so cruel?

I am a cynical misanthrope; and if that weren't enough, I despise all life. That's why.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 02:39:03 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on October 09, 2011, 10:29:26 AM

It can be difficult. Dioptimus Prime left before I joined, so I'm not sure about him.

Well the thread has been stickied so I'm thinking that, unless this website stickies troll threads, the example stands as an example of a serious FEtard who believes in ice wall ninjas.

Then you are welcome to bring this up with Dioptimus Prime the next time he's around. I wouldn't get too excited about that opportunity, though.
Trying to make others responsible for his claims, on the other hand, won't get you far around here. We've had serious REtards (Do you now see the irony of the nickname you use for us? I hope you do.) claim that compasses point towards gravity, that "magnetic West" is a direction, and that you can see the Earth's curvature from 3000 metres above sea level. If I were to hold you accountable for all these claims, I would conclude you're not very bright.

I was asked for an example, I provided an example. Your babbling doesn't change this.
Regarding the irony in the nickname, do you really think that that was not obvious? Really? By the way, though, fetard is a made up word. The only negative connotation that this word has is whatever one you put on it yourself. Sounding like a word means nothing. You however just called me a retard. Once again, you people get to say what you like while any personal attacks on you are met with instant warnings. Ridiculous double standards yet again.

I was asked for an example, I provided an example. Your babbling doesn't change this.

Ah, so you do want me to hold you accountable for other RE'ers' stupidity. Fair enough.

If gravity does not exist then what do compasses point to?

Clearly, RE'ers claim compasses point to gravity. I provided an example and your babbling doesn't change this.

Regarding the irony in the nickname, do you really think that that was not obvious? Really?

To someone who thinks compasses point to gravity? Yes.

By the way, though, fetard is a made up word. The only negative connotation that this word has is whatever one you put on it yourself. Sounding like a word means nothing.

I agree.

You however just called me a retard. Once again, you people get to say what you like while any personal attacks on you are met with instant warnings. Ridiculous double standards yet again.

I haven't called you a retard, I have called you an REtard. Pronounced are-ee-tard. It's a made up word. The only negative connotation that this word has is whatever one you put on it yourself. Looking like a word means nothing.

In fact, you seem to be the only person not to get this. I mean, really? Really? jroa, who has previously admitted to English not being his first language, got it; and you, the ever so arrogant know-it-all of science, did not? Really?

I am an REtard.  Please do not make fun of me.  why are you so cruel?

Notice the "an" and the correct spelling, as opposed to your "a" and incorrect spelling.

Ridiculous double standards on your part for attempting to turn this around on me.

Quote from: jroa on October 12, 2011, 05:55:21 AM

I am an REtard.  Please do not make fun of me.  why are you so cruel?

Notice the "an" and the correct spelling, as opposed to your "a" and incorrect spelling.

Ridiculous double standards on your part for attempting to turn this around on me.

I knowd someone woud someday aprishiate my purfect grammer. 

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 06:29:22 AM

I was asked for an example, I provided an example. Your babbling doesn't change this.

Ah, so you do want me to hold you accountable for other RE'ers' stupidity. Fair enough.

The example was provided at someone else's request. Nobody asked me what you thought. I was clearly asked for an example of someone making a serious claim for "ice ninja's". I used the most official one I could find, i.e. a stickied thread on the first page of the forums. By all means, make out that I said that all FEtards believe it. That's not putting words in my mouth at all. In this thread alone Tausami claimed not to believe this. If you people want to avoid such misunderstandings, you should probably edit the threads that have been stickied on this forum. For example, in the FAQ http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.msg650021#msg650021 a reference is made to the possibility of the "conspiracy" guarding the ice wall. If this is such a ridiculous notion that nobody believes anymore, then why is it on the first page of 2 stickied threads?

Quote from: Heretant on August 20, 2008, 12:09:08 PM

If gravity does not exist then what do compasses point to?

Clearly, RE'ers claim compasses point to gravity. I provided an example and your babbling doesn't change this.

I never claimed that nobody ever thought that compasses point to gravity. A link (that doesn't work for me BTW so direct observation would suggest that it's fake) to an obvious idiotic post proves nothing at all about me.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 06:29:22 AM

Regarding the irony in the nickname, do you really think that that was not obvious? Really?

To someone who thinks compasses point to gravity? Yes.

What has that got to do with me?

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 06:29:22 AM

You however just called me a retard. Once again, you people get to say what you like while any personal attacks on you are met with instant warnings. Ridiculous double standards yet again.

I haven't called you a retard, I have called you an REtard. Pronounced are-ee-tard. It's a made up word. The only negative connotation that this word has is whatever one you put on it yourself. Looking like a word means nothing.

In fact, you seem to be the only person not to get this. I mean, really? Really? jroa, who has previously admitted to English not being his first language, got it;

Quote from: jroa on October 12, 2011, 05:55:21 AM

I am an REtard.  Please do not make fun of me.  why are you so cruel?

Notice the "an" and the correct spelling, as opposed to your "a" and incorrect spelling.

Ridiculous double standards on your part for attempting to turn this around on me.

Touché.

and you, the ever so arrogant know-it-all of science, did not? Really?

Arrogant? Possibly.
Know-it-all of science? Not sure where I made that out. Why don't you find a post by someone else acting like a know-it-all? That'll show me.


Just for future reference, am I supposed to put a disclaimer on all posts now in case some FEtard somewhere takes offence because he/she doesn't believe in that particular ridiculous notion? How does one go about debating with you people when a post made to one person causes such obvious offence to someone who has other baseless beliefs conflicting with them?

How does one go about debating with you people when a post made to one person causes such obvious offence to someone who has other baseless beliefs conflicting with them?

Our moderation sets a new standard. A new low standard, specifically.

Just for future reference, am I supposed to put a disclaimer on all posts now in case some FEtard somewhere takes offence because he/she doesn't believe in that particular ridiculous notion?

No, you're supposed not to be stubborn when most members tell you that most members don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory. Some REtards are creationists. Most FE'er non-creationists would call that dumb. However (assuming you're not a creationist), you wouldn't be the right person to be attacked for this. This case is very similar. Yes, there used to be conspiracy theorists here, but there really aren't many of them around now. Maybe James, if you'd like to hear about glowing shrimp on the moon and NASA agents chasing him all around the world trying to find his boxes of evidence.

How does one go about debating with you people when a post made to one person causes such obvious offence to someone who has other baseless beliefs conflicting with them?

I guess you've just picked a bad topic. The topic of this thread is (more or less) "Ice Wall guards - really?" and the answer is "Nope, not really". That's basically where the discussion should have ended. Why it carried on - I have no idea.