Tom Bishop linking wiki

I have no issue with him quoting and posting links to his wiki, but he is pretty much just as bad as Levee in proving a point. Every time he posts a link to a page in the wiki, it rarely has any relevance to the topic at hand and quite often doesn't prove ANY point at all.

Example:

NASA's spacecraft are clearly bogus when viewed up close.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=A+Close+Look+at+the+Lunar+Lander

This entry doesn't prove a faked moon landing at all. He isn't in any position to comment on the structure of lunar landers and obviously has no intention of backing this up. Why is he continually ignored in his verging-on-spam posts?

I agree: the wiki contains so much nonsense that many Bishop posts should be considered spam.
Also, can we classify him saying "Read Earth Not A Globe" as a low content post please? Earth Not A Globe has been proven not to contain satisfactory answers to the questions he used it to answer.

I agree: the wiki contains so much nonsense that many Bishop posts should be considered spam.
Also, can we classify him saying "Read Earth Not A Globe" as a low content post please? Earth Not A Globe has been proven not to contain satisfactory answers to the questions he used it to answer.

Yes Please!

He preaches worse than a Jahova's Witness.  Hell, I know a few and have spent hour debating them.  They're far better than Tom!  At least they open the relevant passage and quote from it to help prove their point.  Tom just says "read it".

How dare he point people towards evidence! Damn him to hell!

How dare he point people towards evidence! Damn him to hell!

... Good job at reading there, buddy. The point is that it isn't evidence at all.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on April 11, 2010, 03:09:01 PM

How dare he point people towards evidence! Damn him to hell!

... Good job at reading there, buddy. The point is that it isn't evidence at all.

Are you upset Tom doesn't hold your hand and walk you through things?

You guys are just whining now.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on April 11, 2010, 03:09:01 PM

How dare he point people towards evidence! Damn him to hell!

... Good job at reading there, buddy. The point is that it isn't evidence at all.

Are you upset Tom doesn't hold your hand and walk you through things?

You guys are just whining now.

Good job at reading also. I'm not the one that said anything about saying "Read the book". I'm talking about spouting random articles that don't actually say anything. If he wants to prove a point, or reference a chapter in said book, he can go right ahead. I've never seen him do either of these things though and have therefore rarely seen him actually prove his point.

Quote from: theonlydann on April 11, 2010, 03:16:17 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on April 11, 2010, 03:09:01 PM

How dare he point people towards evidence! Damn him to hell!

... Good job at reading there, buddy. The point is that it isn't evidence at all.

Are you upset Tom doesn't hold your hand and walk you through things?

You guys are just whining now.

Good job at reading also. I'm not the one that said anything about saying "Read the book". I'm talking about spouting random articles that don't actually say anything. If he wants to prove a point, or reference a chapter in said book, he can go right ahead. I've never seen him do either of these things though and have therefore rarely seen him actually prove his point.

So you DO want him to hold your hand... i see.

Guys! I've got an idea!

IGNORE HIM.

If you claim he's not making a point, one person should point it out, then you all can move on. Or maybe just move on to the next topic? Or continue on like nothing happened? If you honestly feel he's not bringing anything to the discussion, don't discuss with him.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on April 11, 2010, 03:09:01 PM

How dare he point people towards evidence! Damn him to hell!

... Good job at reading there, buddy. The point is that it isn't evidence at all.

Are you upset Tom doesn't hold your hand and walk you through things?

You guys are just whining now.

We have to hold Toms hand and walk him through every peice of evidence presented by RE'ers.
I think we would like the same treatment from his end

Guys! I've got an idea!

IGNORE HIM.

If you claim he's not making a point, one person should point it out, then you all can move on. Or maybe just move on to the next topic? Or continue on like nothing happened? If you honestly feel he's not bringing anything to the discussion, don't discuss with him.

Easy enough for one person to do, it's just detrimental to the society's rep having someone go around acting like a douche. FEers wonder why nobody takes them seriously, it's because people like TB and Levee go around making shit up and forcing people to leave.

Quote from: JBJosh on April 11, 2010, 03:22:38 PM

Guys! I've got an idea!

IGNORE HIM.

If you claim he's not making a point, one person should point it out, then you all can move on. Or maybe just move on to the next topic? Or continue on like nothing happened? If you honestly feel he's not bringing anything to the discussion, don't discuss with him.

Easy enough for one person to do, it's just detrimental to the society's rep having someone go around acting like a douche. FEers wonder why nobody takes them seriously, it's because people like TB and Levee go around making shit up and forcing people to leave.

It's harmful for the society to have people complaining about every single piece of evidence they don't feel is explained to their standards. If he isn't putting enough effort into providing the evidence you speak of, then it should be that much easier for others to counter his arguments. Enjoy.

It's harmful for the society to have people complaining about every single piece of evidence they don't feel is explained to their standards.

No it isn't. Last I checked, that was the whole basis for the upper fora.

Quote from: JBJosh on April 11, 2010, 03:22:38 PM

Guys! I've got an idea!

IGNORE HIM.

If you claim he's not making a point, one person should point it out, then you all can move on. Or maybe just move on to the next topic? Or continue on like nothing happened? If you honestly feel he's not bringing anything to the discussion, don't discuss with him.

Easy enough for one person to do, it's just detrimental to the society's rep having someone go around acting like a douche. FEers wonder why nobody takes them seriously, it's because people like TB and Levee go around making shit up and forcing people to leave.

People like you really make me wish I was not lumped together with RE'ers.

You make wonderful arguments, but the above message is ridiculously, mind-numbingly dumb.

You act like Tom Bishop and Levee are the only people who have viewpoints in TFES. This is not the case, and you know it. If people come here, think that Levee and Tom Bishop are the only opinions that TFES has, then they don't need their opinions. It's not like Levee and Tom Bishop are the spokespeople, correct? So quit acting like they are.

In fact, let me make a quick parallel. You know that thread FearTehGators made, called "Is this really what the dems think?!" and he posts a vid/link/whatever to one guy saying one thing, then expanding it to everyone who calls themselves a democrat? Yeah, this is just as dumb.

Quote from: theonlydann on April 11, 2010, 03:29:30 PM

It's harmful for the society to have people complaining about every single piece of evidence they don't feel is explained to their standards.

No it isn't. Last I checked, that was the whole basis for the upper fora.

It's for debate. Not bawwwing.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 03:25:49 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on April 11, 2010, 03:22:38 PM

Guys! I've got an idea!

IGNORE HIM.

If you claim he's not making a point, one person should point it out, then you all can move on. Or maybe just move on to the next topic? Or continue on like nothing happened? If you honestly feel he's not bringing anything to the discussion, don't discuss with him.

Easy enough for one person to do, it's just detrimental to the society's rep having someone go around acting like a douche. FEers wonder why nobody takes them seriously, it's because people like TB and Levee go around making shit up and forcing people to leave.

People like you really make me wish I was not lumped together with RE'ers.

You make wonderful arguments, but the above message is ridiculously, mind-numbingly dumb.

You act like Tom Bishop and Levee are the only people who have viewpoints in TFES. This is not the case, and you know it. If people come here, think that Levee and Tom Bishop are the only opinions that TFES has, then they don't need their opinions. It's not like Levee and Tom Bishop are the spokespeople, correct? So quit acting like they are.

In fact, let me make a quick parallel. You know that thread FearTehGators made, called "Is this really what the dems think?!" and he posts a vid/link/whatever to one guy saying one thing, then expanding it to everyone who calls themselves a democrat? Yeah, this is just as dumb.

I'm not making a sweeping generalisation about all FEers at all. I'm still talking about a select few (Two that I can think of right now) people who pretty much go against the grain in all what the rest of the society stand for. TB doesn't help the rest of them, he doesn't help the society.

I'm not making a sweeping generalisation about all FEers at all. I'm still talking about a select few (Two that I can think of right now) people who pretty much go against the grain in all what the rest of the society stand for. TB doesn't help the rest of them, he doesn't help the society.

So your real complain is he's not like the rest of them? And him not being like the rest of them is bad? Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 03:39:55 PM

I'm not making a sweeping generalisation about all FEers at all. I'm still talking about a select few (Two that I can think of right now) people who pretty much go against the grain in all what the rest of the society stand for. TB doesn't help the rest of them, he doesn't help the society.

So your real complain is he's not like the rest of them? And him not being like the rest of them is bad? Glad we cleared that up.

In a way. Really what I'm trying to say is "Why is he allowed to spam so much also?". If low content posts are frowned upon, why is he allowed to post so many of them?

Quote from: JBJosh on April 11, 2010, 03:41:37 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 03:39:55 PM

I'm not making a sweeping generalisation about all FEers at all. I'm still talking about a select few (Two that I can think of right now) people who pretty much go against the grain in all what the rest of the society stand for. TB doesn't help the rest of them, he doesn't help the society.

So your real complain is he's not like the rest of them? And him not being like the rest of them is bad? Glad we cleared that up.

In a way. Really what I'm trying to say is "Why is he allowed to spam so much also?". If low content posts are frowned upon, why is he allowed to post so many of them?

If he's making low-content posts, then report. There's no need for this topic.
If he's going against the grain, deal with it. This happens in clubs and societies all the time. You really don't need a "The views of Tom Pishop are not necessarily the views of TFES" warning on everything he posts.

To 2fst4u, Thermal Detonator, and Lorddave:

You may not agree with the content of his research, but that doesn't mean it's considered spam. We're not going to remove people nor censor them just because you happened not to respect their views. The Flat Earth Society respects any kind of unorthodox thinking. In addition, what Tom Bishop posts doesn't necessarily represent the entire organization.

Can you just warn people to stop making these petty threads?

Can you just warn people to stop making these petty threads?

Unless the thread contains nothing but spam or anything that violates the rules, I don't think that's feasible. After all, we created this forum so that members can have a place to complain about any issues they're not comfortable with. We'll do our best to answer their complaints. I understand what you're trying to say, however.

To 2fst4u, Thermal Detonator, and Lorddave:

You may not agree with the content of his research, but that doesn't mean it's considered spam. We're not going to remove people nor censor them just because you happened not to respect their views. The Flat Earth Society respects any kind of unorthodox thinking. In addition, what Tom Bishop posts doesn't necessarily represent the entire organization.

My issue isn't that I don't agree with him.  My issue is that I can't even debate with him.
When you debate, you present an argument and the other person then presents a counter argument.  Usually backed up with some kind of data.   With tom, his counter argument is "read Earth Not a Globe and the wiki".  It provides no content to debate, no specific proofs, nothing.  His argument, in essence, is "These are the facts and if you don't agree, read it until you do."  How can you debate that?

Or can we tell him to "Read a Physics book" and call that a valid argument?

To 2fst4u, Thermal Detonator, and Lorddave:

You may not agree with the content of his research, but that doesn't mean it's considered spam. We're not going to remove people nor censor them just because you happened not to respect their views. The Flat Earth Society respects any kind of unorthodox thinking. In addition, what Tom Bishop posts doesn't necessarily represent the entire organization.

I didn't say anything about not agreeing with his views (I don't, but I didn't say it). This is about not proving anything or contributing constructively to topics he posts in.

Well, then I honestly don't see any problem with him posting links to the wiki. If he fails to prove anything, criticize his tactics. If he fails to contribute constructively, asks him to elaborate. It is unfair to punish him or forbid him from posting just because he happens to have a very poor debate tactic.

Well, then I honestly don't see any problem with him posting links to the wiki. If he fails to prove anything, criticize his tactics. If he fails to contribute constructively, asks him to elaborate. It is unfair to punish him or forbid him from posting just because he happens to have a very poor debate tactic.

You don't think anybody has tried that?

Re-enactment:

Him: "Why does this happen?"

Us: "See this page in wiki here"

Him: "What? That doesn't make sense at all... [other stuff]"

Us: "Read Earth Not a Globe"


It's no use.

Ah yes, Tom Bishop has been the bane of many a rounder.  Actually asking that he be censored is a brand new slant, I must say.

Ah yes, Tom Bishop has been the bane of many a rounder.  Actually asking that he be censored is a brand new slant, I must say.

I wouldn't call him a Bane so much as an annoyance.  I've actually had debates with him, especially when he posts about NASA fraud.  Beyond that, though, he doesn't provide anything useful.

I would not advocate his complete censor either.  But at least a warning to not use that as a valid argument would be nice.

You don't think anybody has tried that?

Re-enactment:

Him: "Why does this happen?"

Us: "See this page in wiki here"

Him: "What? That doesn't make sense at all... [other stuff]"

Us: "Read Earth Not a Globe"


It's no use.

When newcomers make their first post on the forums, they are always directed to the FAQ by regulars. I think Tom adopts a similar tactic. Perhaps he realizes that those people are not well-versed with Flat Earth literature and thus they should read the sources first before they starting engaging with him.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 11, 2010, 06:52:17 PM

You don't think anybody has tried that?

Re-enactment:

Him: "Why does this happen?"

Us: "See this page in wiki here"

Him: "What? That doesn't make sense at all... [other stuff]"

Us: "Read Earth Not a Globe"


It's no use.

When newcomers make their first post on the forums, they are always directed to the FAQ by regulars. I think Tom adopts a similar tactic. Perhaps he realizes that those people are not well-versed with Flat Earth literature and thus they should read the sources first before they starting engaging with him.

Question then:
If I read everything he posts...
Can I then complain when he asks me to read it as a response?