1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
This is also true without EAT, and it applies even when directly overhead. The velocity of light is very much finite.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
This is also true without EAT. It's called parallax.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
Not at all. Care to explain why you'd think so?
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
Perhaps it can be expressed in one way or another. Any thought can be expressed. However, the thought itself is pretty wrong, so hey.
(some steps omitted due to reasoning above)
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Apparently you're unaware of Hubble's Law. If the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same, then we should flush everything we know about astronomy down the toilet.
(FAO Pizza Planet)
The best way to gain my attention is to PM me. I don't read new threads too often - I'm not very good at multitasking, and I'm stuck with several threads full of RE'ers saying the same thing over and over again. So yeah, if you'd like me specifically to address something, just drop me a PM or an e-mail - preferably without calling anyone an idiot. It ruins the spirit of discussion.
To address your points:
1. The paragraph is not referring to the difference in position between an object as seen and its true position as being different due to the travel time of the light. Parsec refers to the difference in position that would be seen between a ray of light that bends and a ray of light that does not bend. Obviously. Lose a point for not understanding the context of "position".
2. Untrue. Without bendy light, objects at an equal distance from an observer appear to be where they are, regardless of whether they are directly overhead or off to the side. Parallax is something completely different and is inapplicable in a situation with one stationary observer, such as in this disproof. Lose a point for not understanding what parallax is.
3. In bendy light, light travelling vertically shows an object to be where it is. Light travelling horizontally shows an object to be elsewhere than it really is. An object that appears to be somewhere other than it really is can be described as having had its position adjusted. An object that appears to be where it really is can be described as not having had its position adjusted. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky. Perhaps you should message Parsec and request he doesn't use such big, complicated words as "more" and "higher" that obviously confuse you. Lose a point for not being able to follow this incredibly simple logic. Lose another point because you're only pretending you can't follow it.
4. Your response is meaningless. Parsec's fourth point is merely a summary of the third point. Lose a point for a meaningless response.
11. He's clearly talking about angular distance as seen from earth. You are pretending you think he means physical distance in space between the two stars (which, incidentally, you can't disprove is not always the same under FET physics: FET says that it is.) Lose a point for being too thick to understand this. Lose another point for only pretending to be too thick to understand this. Lose a third point for mixing and matching RE and FE laws governing celestial bodies.
Overall score for Planet Pizzazz: -8
BTW, posting a thread here is just as good as messaging you. You responded - QED. In fact your response is not necessary, the posting of the argument is there as a reference for you as you so often bang on about how you never see a disproof of bendy light.