About that "150 foot wall of ice"...

So, we are left with just the Roundies again...

It sure gets lonely in the threads abandoned by the FE'ers.

No explanation from the FE side for the difference in distance and direction of turn?  Not one?

So, we are left with just the Roundies again...

It sure gets lonely in the threads abandoned by the FE'ers.

No explanation from the FE side for the difference in distance and direction of turn?  Not one?

Dude, it's because virtually everyone here is a "roundy". In fact, we're all "roundies". When the "FE proponents" see that the debate has died, they leave. They don't actually care about defending something they don't truly support.

People simply play the "FE" part as a form of educational entertainment. Debating is good for you; it makes you think creatively. Some people find it easier to do behind the anonymity of a web-forum, as opposed to real life.

Hell, I've actually tried the "FE" stance a couple of times, despite the fact my account is pretty new. It's a lot more fun, however, to remain explicitly "RE" and bash on the devil's advocate-"FE" kids, as this thread has successfully done.




Now, all that said, there is still a good chance that one or two FUCKING MORONS actually believe in FE. Fear not, however: according to social Darwinism, they'll be gone within the next couple of decades (or sooner).

Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 05:47:09 PM

So, we are left with just the Roundies again...

It sure gets lonely in the threads abandoned by the FE'ers.

No explanation from the FE side for the difference in distance and direction of turn?  Not one?

Dude, it's because virtually everyone here is a "roundy". In fact, we're all "roundies". When the "FE proponents" see that the debate has died, they leave. They don't actually care about defending something they don't truly support.

People simply play the "FE" part as a form of educational entertainment. Debating is good for you; it makes you think creatively. Some people find it easier to do behind the anonymity of a web-forum, as opposed to real life.

Hell, I've actually tried the "FE" stance a couple of times, despite the fact my account is pretty new. It's a lot more fun, however, to remain explicitly "RE" and bash on the devil's advocate-"FE" kids, as this thread has successfully done.




Now, all that said, there is still a good chance that one or two FUCKING MORONS actually believe in FE. Fear not, however: according to social Darwinism, they'll be gone within the next couple of decades (or sooner).

Wow, it's like reading my own posts, but on another FE forum.  The whole "debating is good for you" thing is all well and good, but I think the perversion of proper debate rules on this particular site goes a bit too far.  It gives pseudoscience a bad name.

I agree. One possible explanation for the earnest debating that does in fact take place here (despite the fact I've only been observing this site for a couple of days):

=> I think that people like you--and anyone else who adheres to the serious topic at hand: FE vs. RE--are so methodical and vehement because you care about the intelligence of people as a whole.

You, as a member of "the whole", knowingly or unknowingly burden yourself with the task of righting the ill-informed and confused. I think this is a noble burden, but also an endless one.

There will always be morons out there who simply stick to what is just not correct, i.e. FET. There is also a subset of "the whole" that will always play the part of supporting something as ridiculous as FET, simply to either entertain themselves thoughtfully, or to "troll" on others.


So in the end, whatever YOU say will be right, as a believer/supporter of what is so blatantly true. However, unfortunately, what you say will never turn the entire "whole" population's minds toward the truth, for the two reasons I mentioned above.


Oh, and did I mention that the *TRUE* believers in FET are hopeless nutcases... Yeah.


Those are my thoughts about the "debating" that goes on here. I don't know if it makes sense; I "flow" typed. Haven't read it over, and never will.

Oh well.

Read the history book.

Are history books (in general) reliable? 

Are history books (in general) reliable? 

Yes. You can start with the literature in my signature link.

Quote from: Squat on June 30, 2009, 11:33:06 PM

Are history books (in general) reliable? 

Yes. You can start with the literature in my signature link.

I've started!  I'm really interested in the accuracy of Mr Rowbothams science. For example, on page 14 of ENaG he writes:

It is well known, however, that from an altitude not exceeding 100 feet the Great Orm's Head is visible in clear weather from Douglas Harbour.

Sadly he does not say precisely where in Douglas Harbour he took his measurements from or even that he took any measurements or even that he had been to the Isle of Man. His reliance on "It is well known" obviously would not stand scrutiny in your eyes Mr Bishop. If one does not have first hand evidence then it cannot be proven. Likewise, on page 22 he quotes Lieut. Wilkes. It is sad that Mr Rowbotham could not have seen the Ice Wall for himself but had to rely on this hearsay evidence. Of course, in your eyes Mr Bishop failure to see things first hand is not evidence but Mr Rowbotham makes interesting reading.

As far as history books (in general) go thanks for confirming that they are reliable. I have one on my bookshelf detailing the history of Scott's trek to the South Pole by Admiral Sir Edward R G R Evans. It's quite old but as you confirm, probably reliable.