« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Occam's Razor

  • 81 Replies
  • 20109 Views
?

eric bloedow

Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2007, 11:14:56 AM »
robotham was unbiased?! that's the worst bullshit Tom has ever come up with! he and his work were THE most biased in history! his "experiments" only speak for him and no one else!

when shown that a "leveled" telescope did not point straight at the horizon, he assumed that the telescope must all be lying, then made up a completely new "law" of perspective off the top of his head and wrote it down, then called that "proof".

you know the one i mean tom, you quote it verbatum every time anyone talks about perspective, and you don't even understand it yourself!
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2007, 12:36:11 PM »
lol eric. You fall for it every time. It's hilarious.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

eric bloedow

Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2007, 05:15:28 PM »
fall for what, exactly?
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2007, 05:18:04 PM »
Quote from: Lord Z on December 26, 2007, 12:36:11 PM
lol eric. You fall for it every time. It's hilarious.

Quiet, Z!  This reminds ME of an expression IN poker:  "Don't help the FISH."
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2007, 10:59:21 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on December 25, 2007, 11:59:04 PM
Quote from: eric bloedow on December 25, 2007, 08:41:18 AM
his SMALL plane that never went very high.
Where are you getting this?  How small is my plane?   What is the largest plane I have been on?  How high is very high?  What altitudes have I flown at?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2007, 03:09:24 AM »
Quote from: Max Fagin on December 25, 2007, 11:40:38 PM
How about the scientists at private launch firms who's job is to put satellites in orbit about the Earth?  Is this not experimental evidence?

"Private launch firms," I like that. You know easily how that can be discounted.

Quote from: Max Fagin on December 25, 2007, 11:40:38 PM
You can shout "conspiracy!" at this if you want to, but just remember that any RE'er can just as easily shout "Liar!" at Rowbotham and any FE'er who claims to have duplicated his work.

Who in their right mind would even use Rowbotham anyways?
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2007, 10:13:33 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on December 27, 2007, 03:09:24 AM
"Private launch firms," I like that. You know easily how that can be discounted.

Other than invoking the conspiracy?  No I don't see how that can be discounted.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
?

cwolfe

  • 369
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2007, 10:19:09 AM »
Quote from: Max Fagin on December 27, 2007, 10:13:33 AM
Quote from: divito the truthist on December 27, 2007, 03:09:24 AM
"Private launch firms," I like that. You know easily how that can be discounted.

Other than invoking the conspiracy?  No I don't see how that can be discounted.

Good point.  I personally know scientists who use data from orbiting telescopes in their research, and they certainly don't seem to be in on any conspiracies.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2007, 10:20:53 AM »
Quote
Other than invoking the conspiracy?  No I don't see how that can be discounted.

What private launch firms have seen the earth as a globe?

Merely seeing a curved horizon means nothing, since at a significant height over the surface of the earth one is looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun upon the earth. When looking down at a circle one would expect to see "curvature".
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2007, 10:24:33 AM »
Quote from: Max Fagin on December 27, 2007, 10:13:33 AM
Other than invoking the conspiracy?  No I don't see how that can be discounted.

Oh, you just provided the answer yourself. "Private" is the key and funny aspect of your suggestion.

Quote from: cwolfe on December 27, 2007, 10:19:09 AM
I personally know scientists who use data from orbiting telescopes in their research, and they certainly don't seem to be in on any conspiracies.

Um, usage of data from "orbiting telescopes" doesn't mean people are in a conspiracy.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

eric bloedow

Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2007, 11:42:10 AM »
here's a nice picture of night-time earth:
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fantwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fapod%2Fimage%2F0011%2Fearthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

notice that it's not totally black, as tom implies. his "spotlight" is just part of his mis-interpretation of sunrise and sunset, and has NO relation to REALITY whatsoever!

for instance, he is incapable of answering this question: why are clouds lit underneath AFTER SUNSET?
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2007, 12:26:55 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2007, 10:20:53 AM
What private launch firms have seen the earth as a globe?

Any private launch firm that has launched a spacecraft into a high orbit.  Sea Launch for example:

http://www.sea-launch.com/

It was my understanding that sustained space-flight was not possible in you model of FE.

And of course, as I keep saying, you are asking for experimental evidence of RE, and RE's predictive power IS experimental evidence of a models authenticity.  Just like with the atomic model of chemistry and the standard model of particle physics.  Predictive and explanatory power is experimental evidence.

In that sense, any astronomer may be said to experimentally confirm RE whenever they correctly derive the positions of celestial objects from RE's assumptions.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 01:42:21 PM by Max Fagin »
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2007, 01:02:12 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on December 27, 2007, 11:42:10 AM
here's a nice picture of night-time earth:
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fantwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fapod%2Fimage%2F0011%2Fearthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

notice that it's not totally black, as tom implies. his "spotlight" is just part of his mis-interpretation of sunrise and sunset, and has NO relation to REALITY whatsoever!


Obviously a doctored picture, so why even try to enter it as evidence?
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

jimztar

  • 88
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2007, 06:34:05 AM »
Well, some things are simpler with the FE model and some things are simpler with the RE model. The simplicity of a particular argument really shouldn't be a factor.
Logged
?

eric bloedow

Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2007, 08:12:08 AM »
why the hell would you say it's "obviously" doctored?! explain your "logic" step by step, or admit you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about!
Logged
*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2007, 08:55:29 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on December 31, 2007, 08:12:08 AM
why the hell would you say it's "obviously" doctored?! ....

.... because he can?
Logged
Dyslexics are teople poo!
?

silverhammermba

  • 172
  • Anger makes me debate. Debating makes me angry.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2007, 09:39:31 AM »
Quote from: The Great God Roundy on December 25, 2007, 10:22:13 AM
Quote from: Max Fagin on December 25, 2007, 09:45:31 AM
This 'proof' removes the burden of proof from the RE'ers, just as it removed the burden of proof from those who think matter is composed of atoms, and who think that atoms are composed of specific particles.

Bullshit.  That is circular reasoning.  That "proof" is what you can use in your defense of a RE on a forum that sees things from a FE perspective.  Since it's the REers' view that is the unorthodox one here, it is up to the REers to demonstrate why their model is the correct one.  Because of the nature of this site, the burden of proof sits squarely on the REers' shoulders.

If that wasn't the case, every REer here could just say "We know the earth is round from rigorous experimentation so we don't need to prove it!"

I disagree strongly. Regardless of circular reasoning, the burden of proof lies on FET which is so far completely unable of explaining the universe.

You talk about the burden of proof on this forum as though there are different levels of it!? Are you crazy? You're trying to prove FET - a scientific theory. And you're talking about different scopes of burden of proof as though making your own forum for something suddenly allows you to assume its validity. Since you're trying to prove a scientific theory, when you deal with burden of proof you must take into account the entire scientific community to establish the burden (hint: most scientists think the Earth is round). You don't seem to understand how science works at all.

When the big bang theory was being developed, the proponents didn't go around attacking the other theories of the universe's development, trying to prove them wrong. What they did was they tried to find evidence that only the big bang theory could explain. That's how you do it. If a theory is accepted by the community, then you never actually try to disprove that theory - you simply come up with new theories that explain reality better. Thus the old theories are sort of disproved automatically when the more accurate theory is adopted. A good case of this was when Einstein came up with special relativity as a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity. He didn't go around to other scientists saying "Well prove to me that gravity is correct!" Instead he looked for evidence that only special relativity could explain. Once such evidence was found, gravity was automatically abandoned since it was clearly not as accurate a theory.

So it's insane that you think just because we're on a FE forum that you don't have to prove anything about your theory. Even if FET explained reality as well as RET (which it doesn't) then you'd still have to find evidence for why FET is more accurate (which has yet to happen). If I make forum about how I think that Big Foot exists then I can't assume that he does and say that all evidence of Big Foot's non-existence is faked.

Edit: oops, it was general relativity.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 10:48:36 PM by silverhammermba »
Logged
Quote from: Kasroa
Tom usually says at this point that people have seen the ice-wall. It is the Ross Ice Shelf. That usually kills the conversation by the power of sheer bull-shit alone.
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2007, 10:15:37 AM »
Magnificent post; One addendum though, it was general relativity, not special relativity that replaced Newton's descriptions of gravitation.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2007, 11:02:37 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on December 27, 2007, 11:42:10 AM
here's a nice picture of night-time earth:
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fantwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fapod%2Fimage%2F0011%2Fearthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

notice that it's not totally black, as tom implies. his "spotlight" is just part of his mis-interpretation of sunrise and sunset, and has NO relation to REALITY whatsoever!

for instance, he is incapable of answering this question: why are clouds lit underneath AFTER SUNSET?

not that it invalidates your two points, but that's a composite photo of nighttime earth.  the satellite imagery didn't really resolve that kind of "dark earth" detail either - the luminance data from the lights were superimposed on the high-res composites of daytime exposures (and tweaked to look light night).  not that they did any of this "covertly" or with intent to mislead: the methods they used are fully disclosed and readily available.

but indeed, why are clouds sometimes lit from the bottom at sunset and sunrise?  the best bishop has been able to come up with is that perspective allows the sun to get under the clouds.  um....o...k...?
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2007, 02:04:39 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on December 31, 2007, 08:12:08 AM
why the hell would you say it's "obviously" doctored?! explain your "logic" step by step, or admit you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about!

Absolutely.  I'll even mockingly draw it out for you just to make sure you understand.

On a spherical earth, you would only be able to see one hemisphere at a time.
Now look at that picture.
That picture shows the entire earth at the same time (laid out like a projection map, no less).
Since seeing the entire earth at once should be physically impossible:
It is not an original photograph, but one that has been altered in some way.
Hence, doctored.

Did I make it clear enough for your widdle tiny bwain to understand?
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2007, 03:15:22 PM »
silverhammermba:  I'm not going to quote your entire post, because it's just long, and this post will be long enough without quoting yours.  But the gist of your post is that you believe the burden of proof is on the FES because they are the ones arguing with commonly accepted science.  Is that a fair summary?

Well, you would be correct, if not for one (rather large) thing you're missing: the FES didn't come to you.  They did not "go around attacking the other theories" of the Earth's shape.  They did not send you an e-mail trying to convince you that the RE theory is nonsensical.  They did not try to force their beliefs on you in any way, in fact.  By default, they have no burden of proof, because they didn't come to you and try to convince you.  To the contrary, you came here to try and convince them. 

If an FEer walked into the principal's office in a high school and demanded that all classes taught students that the Earth was flat, that FEer would be totally and completely ignored if he didn't bring proof.  Right?  I mean, I could walk into school and say "Prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are correct about the shape of the Earth.  If you cannot, you are clearly wrong about the shape of the Earth."  And, by your own admission, that would be absurd.  I'd be simply wrong.  I wouldn't have a case.

Well, this site is a school where FE theory is taught.  REers are walking into it and saying "Prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are correct about the shape of the Earth.  If you cannot, you are clearly wrong about the shape of the Earth."

Person A goes to Person B's house and tries to convince Person B that he is wrong about something.  Who has the burden of proof?  Person B, who was simply sitting in his house and endulging himself on his beliefs, or Person A, who came with the goal of changing Person B's opinion?  The REers are Person A.  This is Person B's house.

For a real example, think about religious proponents who go door to door.  If they come to my house and try to convince me to worship as they do, it is their job to convince me that I should, not my job to convince them that I shouldn't.  Regardless of how popular their religion is - even if I was the ONLY person in the entire world who didn't agree with them - they still came to me.  Does that mean that I'm burdened with having to come up with proof that their religion is wrong?  Of course not!

Same idea here.  REers came here to convince FEers, not the other way around.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2007, 03:18:45 PM by Mongrelman... Or so I'm told... »
Logged
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2008, 01:22:33 PM »
Mongrel basically summed it up.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2008, 01:40:33 PM »
good conceptual argument mongrel but with a few flawed metaphors.  for example, this is not the flat earth "house", or home, or castle, or tent, or anything like it.  fe'ers don't come here for safety and shelter.  or education.  they created this forum, and come here, for one thing: debate.  and close to half the time i would wager, are just trolls anyway.  like divito, they come here to challenge others on their very own convictions - just for the sake of mental excercise or just "fun" and little else - only divito at least does not mask his intentions.

so with that in mind (created a forum for the purpose of debate), then i think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to "demand you prove fe or else you're wrong".  the content of such debate may or may not have dubious merit, but in and of itself there is nothing wrong with it.  fe'ers are free to demand the same thing.  may not make for the best debate premise, but no one should get their panties in a wad and say, "hey, you came to us so *you* prove it or else".  the fact is, almost everyone came here from "the outside" and with the exception of the one or few people that run and maintain the site, we are *all* visitors, enjoying an essentially free service to debate with others.  nothing more, nothing less. 

it is not a shrine, a home, a meeting hall, or an idol for one side only.  it is a forum for open debate about a particular topic.  one side is not more or less privileged than the other.  which, i must say, is big of the administrator(s).

everyone here, regardless of their beliefs/convictions, should either be able to back up their assertions with rigorous evidence, or tolerate the heat when they can't.  period.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2008, 01:53:07 PM »
Mask what intentions?  ;)
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2008, 02:02:35 PM »
cpt_bthimes, you make some interesting points, but I don't think you're totally correct either.  This particular board IS made for debate, but that isn't relevant, because the same does not apply to the whole site.  There are places for questions to be asked, and there are places where information is supplied openly.  There are also places where the FE believers can discuss their methods and theories.  To me, that metaphorically relates to a school with classrooms, textbooks, and a teacher's lounge.  This site is a school for FE theory, and this board is the debate class (the general boards are recess and lunch, I suppose).

I really don't think we disagree on anything much, here.  You're saying there is no burden of proof.  I'm saying that, if burden of proof exists, it is on those who disagree with the site's basis, which is FE theory. 
Logged
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2008, 02:21:11 PM »
fair enough.  i still don't agree, but that doesn't mean you're wrong.  although, you do have a good point about there being educational material.
Logged
?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2008, 02:28:09 PM »
Now, admittedly, I will agree with the OP where he implies that it isn't physically possible to win a debate here unless you believe the Earth to be flat. 
Logged
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.
?

silverhammermba

  • 172
  • Anger makes me debate. Debating makes me angry.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #57 on: January 01, 2008, 11:07:59 PM »
Mongrelman, good points but I still disagree.

If the FES were to develop another site where they made it perfectly clear that REers were not welcome to join, only then would I not care if they assumed RET had the burden of proof. Such is not the case though.

Position - be it physical as in your analogy of evangelists, or electronic as in the case of this forum - is utterly irrelevant. FET is a scientific theory as it is a theory regarding the nature of reality. You say that the FEers "did not come to me". Wrong, they did. Even though I joined this FES forum to debate the theory, it was through the act of formally establishing FET via this website that the FES confronted the mainstream scientific community. Since I am in agreement with the mainstream community, then I was one of those people confronted. I'm pretty sure that the FES has made it clear that they want to spread their theory and convince more people of its truth. Even though they are not pursuing this evangelically in the physical sense of going out and forcing FET upon people, they are doing so scientifically simply by believing in and trying to prove a theory that contradicts the mainstream scientific view.

The FES has made it clear that this forum is open to anyone, thus any member of the scientific community. So long as they maintain this view point, the burden of proof necessarily lies on them.
Logged
Quote from: Kasroa
Tom usually says at this point that people have seen the ice-wall. It is the Ross Ice Shelf. That usually kills the conversation by the power of sheer bull-shit alone.
?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #58 on: January 01, 2008, 11:52:03 PM »
Honestly, I have to start the same way you did.

Good points but I still disagree.

In the case of physical evangelism, let us add another requistive, just for the sake of discussion: Let's say that I openly advertise me belief that there is no God.  I put signs and posters on my walls outside saying "There is no God."  A Christian walks by and thinks to themself "well, that's absurd."  So he knocks on my door.  Am I now inclined to prove that there is no God? 

Of course not.  I advertised an opinion that contradicted his opinion, but I did not initiate confrontation.  If he did not have a method for demonstrating God to me, there was no reason to knock on my door.  He could have just shrugged it off and moved on.  Sure, its fine that he felt the need to try and spread his opinion, but he should actually TRY to spread his opinion, not just ask me to spread mine.  I mean, sure, if my banners outside said "I have proof that there is no God", the burden of proof would OBVIOUSLY be on me.  That is not the case on this forum.  There is no warning saying "The Earth is flat and we can prove it."  It just invites people to come in and discuss the theory.  Come in and discuss the theory =/= come in and ask for proof of the theory.

Yes, they have made it clear that they welcome opposing viewpoints from any members of the scientific community. No, they have not claimed to have undeniable proof.  You say they came to you by confronting mainstream science.  I say they expressed their opinion in a controlled environment and then you came to tell them they're wrong.  You (the REers in general) are the evangelists.  You are knocking on the door. 

If there is a burden of proof, it is on you.  Whether or not there is a burden of proof at all is debatable, because we're discussing unproven theory.  But if it is there, it is on the ones who initiate the confrontation, and simply expressing one's opinion does not constitute initiating the confrontation. 

Bottom line is this: "This forum is for the serious debate and discussion of Flat Earth theory."  Not necessarily for serious debate and discussion of the shape of the Earth, but of FE theory.  That means that the base assumption should be that the Earth is flat.  And until someone proves otherwise, that assumption stands. 

EDIT: I should clarify one thing.  You WERE, tehcnically, invited to join, but only AFTER you're already come to the site.  That is comparable to knocking on the door to a house and being invited inside.  You typed in theflatearthsociety.org and pushed enter before you saw their invitation to join, not after.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 01:19:34 AM by Mongrelman »
Logged
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2008, 03:41:07 AM »
Sigh. Come on people, the burden of proof is on those who make claims.

The only claims made within the actual forum are in the FAQ. That post was written by Daniel, in part with TheEngineer and probably others and they aren't around. (Outside of TE obviously)

The burden of proof ends up resting on someone who isn't here. The only other BoPs are on those who make claims in the forum.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »