now i am really confused

I came across this site almost 2years ago, and while at first i just wanted to come on, post some comments and make some threads which in hindsight were actually really really stupid, possibly quite offensive not in favor for RET at all. after much deliberation on the subject and a slight bit of maturity on my behalf i have realized that the more science progresses the more it can be used to support FET as well as RET and thus have found myself seriously questioning my own belief on what shape our earth is. to sustain a belief in god a strong faith necessary to hold your views and opinions together however to believe RET requires a strong faith in our supposed world leaders, which i think cannot be and shouldn't be in any respect compared to God. following this line of thought all i can come up with is that people are generically good and would not partake in such heinous activities to present the rest of mankind with complete and utter lies but when you look at the whole picture and see the world for what it is and see the people who inhabit it for who they are you see that people are not actually good at all and would be very capable of pulling of the biggest conspiracy we have ever seen. with all this taken into account, i still cannot fathom the information this site has put forward and in a life or death situation would have to agree that the world is a ball and gravity exists and all of the above, even tho in the back of my mind i almost know that i would be adding 2+2 and answering 5. what is it going to take to completely convince people one way or another and hopefully in support of FET? i like to look at this whole argument for and against as a big philosophical exploration into the human condition and have come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what shape the earth it... so why would adherents to FET be trying to tell us otherwise? just as people ask what gain is there for NASA and company. what gain is there for FEers ? there is personal selfish motivations behind every action anyone carries out, so what is there to gain from a FEers point of view? i hope this makes sense to the people who read it and to some extent analyze what i have said. if it doesnt make sense im sorry, i just really made it up as i went along.

I gave up reading when I realised that you had forgotten to include paragraphs in your submission.

ok, good lol. its responses like yours which make it clear beyond a doubt that this site is just for a laugh and to hone your skills as a troll. oh, btw, your response is lacking in paragraph structure too just incase you didnt notice. how come if someone asks a serious question it is picked apart by means of little imagination and thought. conventional literature does not apply to informal questions and answers on what is heavily considered to be a joke website.

oh, btw, your response is lacking in paragraph structure too just incase you didnt notice.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that individual sentences were supposed to be split into paragraphs.

You guys are asshats.

It's bad structure, but it's by no means a wall of text.

Contract, if you find yourself questioning RE, you either..

1. Have a weak mind
2. Don't understand Physics, Maths and many other branches of science
3. Both

Generalizations are bad, but sometimes painfully true.

Contract, if you find yourself questioning RE, you either..

1. Have a weak mind
2. Don't understand Physics, Maths and many other branches of science
3. Both

Generalizations are bad, but sometimes painfully true.

I agree, we should never question accepted knowledge. What weak minds Galileo, Darwin and Einstein had, to question the prevalent wisdom of their times.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 05:11:01 AM

Contract, if you find yourself questioning RE, you either..

1. Have a weak mind
2. Don't understand Physics, Maths and many other branches of science
3. Both

Generalizations are bad, but sometimes painfully true.

I agree, we should never question accepted knowledge. What weak minds Galileo, Darwin and Einstein had, to question the prevalent wisdom of their times.

You make a terrible troll, Parsifal.

Comprehend #2.

Quote from: contract_feral on September 21, 2010, 04:05:26 AM

oh, btw, your response is lacking in paragraph structure too just incase you didnt notice.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that individual sentences were supposed to be split into paragraphs.

well then smarty pie, how many sentences constitute a means for a paragraph? just stay to what you know and answer to the best of your ability some of the questions i have asked unless oyu don't know anything at all.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 21, 2010, 04:16:15 AM

Quote from: contract_feral on September 21, 2010, 04:05:26 AM

oh, btw, your response is lacking in paragraph structure too just incase you didnt notice.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that individual sentences were supposed to be split into paragraphs.

well then smarty pie, how many sentences constitute a means for a paragraph? just stay to what you know and answer to the best of your ability some of the questions i have asked unless oyu don't know anything at all.

In fairness, I suggest that five or six sentences should be the most in a conversational paragraph. I appreciate that the trolls chose to be pedantic again, but that's the nature of the forums. I would discount any posts by Parsifal, as he believes that Australia does not exist and that M31 is only 1mm wide.

You make a terrible troll, Parsifal.

Comprehend #2.

So you're telling me that Einstein did not understand physics and maths?

I would discount any posts by Parsifal, as he believes that Australia does not exist and that M31 is only 1mm wide.

It's got nothing to do with belief; those are what conclusions the evidence available clearly points to.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 05:54:09 AM

I would discount any posts by Parsifal, as he believes that Australia does not exist and that M31 is only 1mm wide.

It's got nothing to do with belief; those are what conclusions the evidence available clearly points to.

So do you deny that you believe that Australia doesn't exist or the M31 is only 1mm wide? What you believe goes to your lack of credibility.

So do you deny that you believe that Australia doesn't exist or the M31 is only 1mm wide? What you believe goes to your lack of credibility.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:03:27 AM

So do you deny that you believe that Australia doesn't exist or the M31 is only 1mm wide? What you believe goes to your lack of credibility.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.

Your beliefs are relevant to your credibility. Your credibility is relevant to your posts. Your posts are in the thread.

That said, your failure to deal with your credibility problems allows us to conclude that it is wise to discount your posts. Thanks for clearing that up.

Your beliefs are relevant to your credibility.

Wrong, CrackToter. What I believe has nothing to do with the credibility of anything I can substantiate with evidence.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:34:00 AM

Your beliefs are relevant to your credibility.

Wrong, CrackToter. What I believe has nothing to do with the credibility of anything I can substantiate with evidence.

Wrong. What you believe has everything to do with your credibility.

Wrong. What you believe has everything to do with your credibility.

So if, for example, you found out that Asag Newton had believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that would affect the credibility of his Laws of Motion?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:49:18 AM

Wrong. What you believe has everything to do with your credibility.

So if, for example, you found out that Asag Newton had believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that would affect the credibility of his Laws of Motion?

Since I don't know of anyone by that name, I don't have an answer.

Since I don't know of anyone by that name, I don't have an answer.

I believe he is referred to in your RE propaganda as "Sir" Isaac Newton.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:55:29 AM

Since I don't know of anyone by that name, I don't have an answer.

I believe he is referred to in your RE propaganda as "Sir" Isaac Newton.

I don't know of any RE propaganda, so I still don't have an answer.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 05:15:47 AM

You make a terrible troll, Parsifal.

Comprehend #2.

So you're telling me that Einstein did not understand physics and maths?

If light really does bend the way that you claim it does (via Electromagnetic Acceleration), then obviously he didn't.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 21, 2010, 07:56:42 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:55:29 AM

Since I don't know of anyone by that name, I don't have an answer.

I believe he is referred to in your RE propaganda as "Sir" Isaac Newton.

I don't know of any RE propaganda, so I still don't have an answer.

Good, no answer. Next!

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 05:15:47 AM

You make a terrible troll, Parsifal.

Comprehend #2.

So you're telling me that Einstein did not understand physics and maths?

You're so easy.

1. The flat earth theory spits on every scientist and great thinker you mentioned, with their theories and explanations.
2. The scientists and great thinkers you mentioned never questioned a round Earth. They provided evidence and working for models that would later be proven correct.

Trololol

I don't understand. How is that impenetrable wall of text inviting to anybody that has seen over twenty of those in the last month alone? I'm sorry, but (regardless of how this thread has been derailed) readability is a huge factor here, when so many people have stupid questions to ask.

No, it isn't. I read it fine in 30 seconds. If it were another paragraph in length, then I would agree, but this is not a very big body of text.

Regardless, the OP should just summarize it.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:59:07 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 21, 2010, 07:56:42 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 21, 2010, 07:55:29 AM

Since I don't know of anyone by that name, I don't have an answer.

I believe he is referred to in your RE propaganda as "Sir" Isaac Newton.

I don't know of any RE propaganda, so I still don't have an answer.

Good, no answer. Next!

I don't think you're one to speak, considering your track record for answering questions of any sort, with more questions.

The more Parsifal speaks the more I realize this is a creationist or religious style Website.

Interesting Read, really!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/starting-a-war-with-a-fla_b_707471.html



Typical religious dogma. Btw, the video is typical Banana Man attempt at circumventing intellect by like equating run away kids as a pre-emotional plea and setup to get said parents into a mindset of vulnerability to the concept. Typical subliminal fear mongering found in the mechanics of brainwashing.

The more Parsifal speaks the more I realize this is a creationist or religious style Website.

Who's this parsifal that everyone is talking about?

Berny

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 05:07:15 PM

The more Parsifal speaks the more I realize this is a creationist or religious style Website.

Who's this parsifal that everyone is talking about?

Berny

Parsifal is typical FE religious dogma. It speaks in religious dogmatic trolling incantations.   

Quote from: berny_74 on September 21, 2010, 05:16:40 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 05:07:15 PM

The more Parsifal speaks the more I realize this is a creationist or religious style Website.

Who's this parsifal that everyone is talking about?

Berny

Parsifal is typical FE religious dogma. It speaks in religious dogmatic trolling incantations.   

Judging by this conversation, I am forced to conclude the both of you lack the ability to read.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 05:39:27 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on September 21, 2010, 05:16:40 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 05:07:15 PM

The more Parsifal speaks the more I realize this is a creationist or religious style Website.

Who's this parsifal that everyone is talking about?

Berny

Parsifal is typical FE religious dogma. It speaks in religious dogmatic trolling incantations.   

Judging by this conversation, I am forced to conclude the both of you lack the ability to read.

Okay now I am really confused?
My ability to read is in quesion because I cannot see any info or posts with parsifal?

Berny

You are absolved. Mea culpa.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 05:39:27 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on September 21, 2010, 05:16:40 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 05:07:15 PM

The more Parsifal speaks the more I realize this is a creationist or religious style Website.

Who's this parsifal that everyone is talking about?

Berny

Parsifal is typical FE religious dogma. It speaks in religious dogmatic trolling incantations.   

Judging by this conversation, I am forced to conclude the both of you lack the ability to read.

My posting of the article had nothing to do with the conclusion of it other than that FES here seems to be arguing against it Hence, apparently waging it's own war of ignorance vs modern science.

You're so easy.

1. The flat earth theory spits on every scientist and great thinker you mentioned, with their theories and explanations.
2. The scientists and great thinkers you mentioned never questioned a round Earth. They provided evidence and working for models that would later be proven correct.

Irrelevant. They questioned the accepted knowledge of their day, something you are saying indicates weak-mindedness. How do you know that FET will not later be proven correct?