The pigeonhole, get in it.

It is my guess that there are no intellectuals, women, or indeed any heterosexuals among the ranks of round earthers. So in essence, it is an establishment of retarded sodomites who have fantasized for so long that they've begun to believe their fantasies. They've created shams and mockeries to defend their travesties. Yet, by their own claim, will do no footwork to prove them or seek the truth otherwise.

If you lived on top of Mt. Everest, and looked out your window, you would see the utter lack of curvature ... so enough with the "enough with the 'look out your window, what do you see', b.s.".

If something isn't obvious, they'll state what is, and fabricate reasons for what isn't. They deny all knowledgeable claims made by credible sources that may threaten their reality. They'll use "NASA", answer with questions, and make excuses... all to stale-mate a debate and avoid having to give a good answer or admit being wrong.

They're probably all individuals who like, trust, or are unafraid of sexual progress, including any manner of large men in tight leather pants.

Willful Consent is their prerogative.

Amirite?

Either that, or they all actually know the earth is flat, and we all be postin' in a TROLL THREAD THAT SHOULD BE MOVED TO ANGRY RANTING.

It is my guess that there are no intellectuals, women, or indeed any heterosexuals among the ranks of round earthers. So in essence, it is an establishment of retarded sodomites who have fantasized for so long that they've begun to believe their fantasies. They've created shams and mockeries to defend their travesties. Yet, by their own claim, will do no footwork to prove them or seek the truth otherwise.

If you lived on top of Mt. Everest, and looked out your window, you would see the utter lack of curvature ... so enough with the "enough with the 'look out your window, what do you see', b.s.".

If something isn't obvious, they'll state what is, and fabricate reasons for what isn't. They deny all knowledgeable claims made by credible sources that may threaten their reality. They'll use "NASA", answer with questions, and make excuses... all to stale-mate a debate and avoid having to give a good answer or admit being wrong.

They're probably all individuals who like, trust, or are unafraid of sexual progress, including any manner of large men in tight leather pants.

Willful Consent is their prerogative.

Amirite?

Either that, or they all actually know the earth is flat, and we all be postin' in a TROLL THREAD THAT SHOULD BE MOVED TO ANGRY RANTING.

I am a notable scientific thinker.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 09, 2009, 07:29:16 AM

I am a notable scientific thinker.

care to link to any published work?

Your PhD thesis, perhaps?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 10, 2009, 04:42:37 AM

(I have a Ph.D. in Medical Physics - from The University of Hull, UK, 1996 - so I know of which I speak.)

"Hull" sounds a lot like "Hell". Coincidence? I think not.

I bet there are some people with beards there too.

It is my guess that there are no sailors, astronomers, or indeed any notable scientific thinkers among the ranks of the FES. So in essence, it is a "society" of ignoramuses who have fantasized for so long that they've begun to believe their fantasies. They've created conspiracies and convoluted explanations to defend their new-found views. Yet, by their own claim, will do no footwork to prove them or seek the truth otherwise.

If you lived on top of Mt. Everest, and looked out your window, you would see the curvature of earth... so enough with the "look out your window, what do you see", b.s.

If something isn't obvious, they'll state what is, and fabricate reasons for what isn't. They deny all knowledgeable claims made by credible sources that may threaten their reality. They'll use wishy-washy science-y-wienc-y (thank you Dr. Who) sounding theories, throw around conspiracy theories, answer with questions, and make excuses... all to stale-mate a debate and avoid having to give a good answer or admit being wrong.

They're probably all individuals who dislike, distrust, or are afraid of technological and scientific progress, including any manner of space exploration.

Willful Ignorance is their prerogative.

Amirite?

Either that, or they all actually know the earth is round, and we all be postin' in a TROLL FORUM SOCIETY.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 09, 2009, 07:29:16 AM

I am a notable scientific thinker.

This is true.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 09, 2009, 07:29:16 AM

I am a notable scientific thinker.

care to link to any published work?

Your PhD thesis, perhaps?

Quote from: elodbob on June 09, 2009, 08:22:16 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 09, 2009, 07:29:16 AM

I am a notable scientific thinker.

care to link to any published work?

Your PhD thesis, perhaps?

He was published by the BBC.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:18:56 PM

Quote from: elodbob on June 09, 2009, 08:22:16 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 09, 2009, 07:29:16 AM

I am a notable scientific thinker.

care to link to any published work?

Your PhD thesis, perhaps?

He was published by the BBC.

And we all know the BBC's reputation as a respected scientific journal.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:18:56 PM

Quote from: elodbob on June 09, 2009, 08:22:16 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 09, 2009, 07:29:16 AM

I am a notable scientific thinker.

care to link to any published work?

Your PhD thesis, perhaps?

He was published by the BBC.

LOL but no.

He was interviewed by the BBC. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:56:54 PM

His words were published by the BBC.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:18:56 PM

He was published by the BBC.

Someone's words being published, and being published are not the same thing.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 01:47:04 PM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 16, 2009, 12:59:49 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:56:54 PM

His words were published by the BBC.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:18:56 PM

He was published by the BBC.

Someone's words being published, and being published are not the same thing.

According to?

The dictionary.

Dogplatter was not published by the BBC. He was quoted in a slow news article written by a journalist. That journalist was "published by the BBC".

You are spoiling this glorious thread with your troll faeces.

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

Quote from: Soze on June 16, 2009, 02:20:34 PM

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

A Phd gives credibility. This cannot be ignored, as a Phd is also assessed to show that the author is of reasonable intellect and has approached the topic at hand in the correct scientific manner. I am unaware of any FE who falls into all those categories.

Quote from: mazty88 on June 16, 2009, 02:28:26 PM

Quote from: Soze on June 16, 2009, 02:20:34 PM

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

A Phd gives credibility. This cannot be ignored, as a Phd is also assessed to show that the author is of reasonable intellect and has approached the topic at hand in the correct scientific manner. I am unaware of any FE who falls into all those categories.

Lack of a Phd doesn't mean we are unscientific. If we all had Phd's would you give FE credit, or would you still argue against it? You are targeting an unreliable measure of intelligence to pass judgment on the proponents and extending your quickly formed judgment to the arguments. The posts of the FE'ers should speak for themselves and you needn't focus on the person behind them at all. Unless of course, attacking the arguments themselves is too hard, because there is little to nothing wrong with them.

If a friend intellectual below you asked you to consider something, would you disregard it on account of its origin or would you consider and evaluate the idea's validity for itself?

Requiring a Phd of someone just gives you an excuse to ignore what they have to say.

Quote from: Soze on June 16, 2009, 02:20:34 PM

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

A Phd gives credibility. This cannot be ignored, as a Phd is also assessed to show that the author is of reasonable intellect and has approached the topic at hand in the correct scientific manner. I am unaware of any FE who falls into all those categories.

Quote from: mazty88 on June 16, 2009, 02:28:26 PM

Quote from: Soze on June 16, 2009, 02:20:34 PM

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

A Phd gives credibility. This cannot be ignored, as a Phd is also assessed to show that the author is of reasonable intellect and has approached the topic at hand in the correct scientific manner. I am unaware of any FE who falls into all those categories.

That is a completely unscientific approach. It is a blatant appeal to authority, and throughout history ideas have been discarded because someone that is "more credible" says they are incorrect. The Greeks were considered credible by the Europeans, and that helped stop scientific advance for centuries.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 04:07:25 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on June 16, 2009, 02:28:26 PM

Quote from: Soze on June 16, 2009, 02:20:34 PM

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

A Phd gives credibility. This cannot be ignored, as a Phd is also assessed to show that the author is of reasonable intellect and has approached the topic at hand in the correct scientific manner. I am unaware of any FE who falls into all those categories.

That is a completely unscientific approach. It is a blatant appeal to authority, and throughout history ideas have been discarded because someone that is "more credible" says they are incorrect. The Greeks were considered credible by the Europeans, and that helped stop scientific advance for centuries.

F*ck even your knowledge of history sucks.
The Greeks were considered credible by the church. It was the church that stopped scientific advance...and also believed in a flat earth.

A Phd shows a person understands the scientific process. This seems to generally work, as all you FE retards do not understand the scientific method, and don't have Phds, & most likely don't even have degrees, or a high standard of education.

Quote from: mazty88 on June 16, 2009, 05:13:45 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 04:07:25 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on June 16, 2009, 02:28:26 PM

Quote from: Soze on June 16, 2009, 02:20:34 PM

Scientific standing should be based on the material one presents and not one's background. It is true that there are scientific thinkers, pilots, and cartographers who present arguments for FES, but you are examining the person behind them to come to conclusions about their ideas instead of examining their ideas directly. It is the same reason an ad hominem attack is fallacious. You are trying to disregard the arguments for FE based on lack of a Phd. That is simply biased and ludicrous behavior.

A Phd gives credibility. This cannot be ignored, as a Phd is also assessed to show that the author is of reasonable intellect and has approached the topic at hand in the correct scientific manner. I am unaware of any FE who falls into all those categories.

That is a completely unscientific approach. It is a blatant appeal to authority, and throughout history ideas have been discarded because someone that is "more credible" says they are incorrect. The Greeks were considered credible by the Europeans, and that helped stop scientific advance for centuries.

F*ck even your knowledge of history sucks.
The Greeks were considered credible by the church. It was the church that stopped scientific advance...and also believed in a flat earth.

A Phd shows a person understands the scientific process. This seems to generally work, as all you FE retards do not understand the scientific method, and don't have Phds, & most likely don't even have degrees, or a high standard of education.

I don't care who holds someone credible. I know it was the church. The fact remains that appealing to someone because of their authority is a completely illogical thing to do and is actually a fallacy.

P.S. I have no problem with swearing, but I do have a problem with hypocrisy. If you think a word is too horrible to type on the internet, don't go half ass and censor one letter, don't fucking use it.

I don't care who holds someone credible. I know it was the church. The fact remains that appealing to someone because of their authority is a completely illogical thing to do and is actually a fallacy.

P.S. I have no problem with swearing, but I do have a problem with hypocrisy. If you think a word is too horrible to type on the internet, don't go half ass and censor one letter, don't fucking use it.

does anyone have a link to this bbc story/interview?

is it a video?

my, that would make my day.