ClockTower was asking about the FAQ. Try not to confuse the two.
Actually, ClockTower was referring quite specifically to 'my' model. Observe:
Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach (and a magical hopping Sun) with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge.
And I suggest you get your own model inserted into the FAQ. Then we can know what it is, rather than using our telepathy, which hurts the frontal labia so.
You could always just ask me. It doesn't require any telepathy, just memory (though this too was apparently beyond ClockTower).
The drawing shows an edge, as I've already told you.
The drawing may have an edge, but that does not imply that the Earth does. Given I have been clear in the past that what lies beyond the known Earth is
unknown, it would be ridiculous to add any further detail. Incidentally, this post implicitly concedes that the FAQ says no such thing.
Tell me where you told me, as you claim here, that you were more than clear about the lack of an edge.
First of all, I have never said there
isn't an edge, simply that what lies beyond the known Earth is
unknown. As for examples of me being clear about that, here is a post which you yourself quoted:
Yes, which is why I have often stated that what lies beyond the known Earth is simply unknown. Speculation is not a dark art; there is nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it recognised for what it is.
Then why isn't the ice wall described as speculative in the FAQ? I assume that it's not intentionally dishonest, right?
It is somewhat ironic that your question was related to dishonesty.
Furthermore, tell us the reason that you conclude, rather than just speculate, that there is no edge.
As I said above (both in this post and the one quoted), I do not conclude that there is no edge, precisely because that would be entirely speculative.
Note that I've already presented clear problems with the illumination diagram, including the failure to provide the simultaneous illumination of the Earth near longitude 180o at 12.00 Zulu. You have to face the dismal failure of this model.
Do you actually understand what I am saying? These images are based on RET; they are simple azimuthal projections which represent the distribution of light on Earth. I use them as an illustration of concept. I agree that the mechanism for such distribution is very poorly explained in this model at the moment, but you appear to be disagreeing with the distribution of light as depicted in this model.
Again, your theory fails to explain the basics. If your model can't explain the Sun's actual movements, then it's really a poor model.
A fair criticism, and one I have acknowledged above. However, this in no way justifies your dishonest misrepresentation of the model.
That's a non sequitur. Explorers need not make that assumption and even if they do they can use the diagram linked from FAQ to find proof of your model.
That they need not make the assumption does not change the fact that current navigation methods would keep them within the known Earth, unless perhaps they were to actively try and test my model, which I submit would be difficult to do without a great deal of prior thought.