« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"

  • 232 Replies
  • 60437 Views
*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #180 on: July 31, 2012, 12:40:58 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 10:08:58 AM
I think you're talking about non-commutative geometry.

To whom are you referring? I don't know the terminology, but I can test it with a baseball and a 45 record if you'd like.

I was talking to you.

Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #181 on: July 31, 2012, 01:45:06 PM »
Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 10:08:58 AM
I think you're talking about non-commutative geometry.

To whom are you referring? I don't know the terminology, but I can test it with a baseball and a 45 record if you'd like.

I was talking to you.

Can you explain non-commutative geometry to me? I don't know the terminology. At all.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #182 on: July 31, 2012, 02:20:16 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 01:45:06 PM
Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 10:08:58 AM
I think you're talking about non-commutative geometry.

To whom are you referring? I don't know the terminology, but I can test it with a baseball and a 45 record if you'd like.

I was talking to you.

Can you explain non-commutative geometry to me? I don't know the terminology. At all.

You can visualise it.

Take a football or a round object put your finger on it's equator (the start position). Move up the ball perpendicular to the equator a certain distance, now move across around the ball parallel to the equator (note the end point). Remember the distances and the directions.

Now put your finger back to the start position but do the directions in reverse with the same distances.

If the surface is commutative then the end point would be the same no matter which way around you took the directions, if the surface is non-commutative then the end point will not be the same if you took the directions in a different order.

There are certain points and directions on a sphere that do commute but on the whole a sphere is a non-commutative geometry.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #183 on: August 01, 2012, 06:24:59 AM »
I see what you mean. But what I'm saying is the degree and direction of turn on a sphere and a disk (assuming the disk has the same surface area on top as the sphere does) are different for going around it at any given "latitude."
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #184 on: August 01, 2012, 10:40:39 AM »
I think what you're describing is a result of non-commutative geometry.

For different latitudes you will travel a different longitude around a sphere as opposed to a plane (disc).

It's interesting because it's the reason why a 2D version of a round earth map is distorted.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #185 on: August 01, 2012, 11:14:17 AM »
Yea that is what I'm saying. Just thought I'd re-word what I said to see if we were on the same page.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Megaman

  • 176
  • +0/-0
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #186 on: August 13, 2012, 11:54:33 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 10:36:30 AM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:31:11 AM
Quote from: garygreen on July 29, 2012, 02:22:57 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM
Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

In what way does Rowbotham 'modify' plane geometry?  What is the difference between the two?  Perhaps you could point me to a page number or chapter title for an example of where Rowbotham does this?

There is no one page number. Read the entire thing.

Rowbotham uses flawed logic

Proof:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55463.0.html#.UClNLERivXo
Logged
?

Megaman

  • 176
  • +0/-0
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #187 on: August 13, 2012, 12:01:18 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: Battery72 on July 29, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2012, 10:00:00 AM
Quote from: Battery72 on July 28, 2012, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: timme on July 28, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
So can anyone here provide proof that the earth is flat. I'm still waiting for it.

Mee too  ;D It's all based on one person's skill in dabating from the 1800s. It's all about how water is flat no matter what so how would that fit on a round Earth. Since they don't believe in gravity the Earth must be flat LOL. That's a joke because if you have a glass of water, change it's angle 45%. the wather will still be flat, but it's possible that the vessel can have a shape other that flat for the water to be flat.

If the earth is round all standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

It does Tom. You can measure this on the ocean. If you found a perfectly calm stretch of water over 28 kilometers yo could tie a string to a boat 1 inch above sea level strech it out over 28 ks and tie it to another boat . If the water was truly flat, the string would remain exactly 1 inch above the water, but no it would touch or go under the water even pulled taught. What do you say about this?

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

For someone who is such a huge supporter of Rowbotham, I find it strange that you neglect to come to his defense when his logic is brought to question.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #188 on: August 13, 2012, 12:15:10 PM »
Quote from: Megaman on August 13, 2012, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: Battery72 on July 29, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2012, 10:00:00 AM
Quote from: Battery72 on July 28, 2012, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: timme on July 28, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
So can anyone here provide proof that the earth is flat. I'm still waiting for it.

Mee too  ;D It's all based on one person's skill in dabating from the 1800s. It's all about how water is flat no matter what so how would that fit on a round Earth. Since they don't believe in gravity the Earth must be flat LOL. That's a joke because if you have a glass of water, change it's angle 45%. the wather will still be flat, but it's possible that the vessel can have a shape other that flat for the water to be flat.

If the earth is round all standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

It does Tom. You can measure this on the ocean. If you found a perfectly calm stretch of water over 28 kilometers yo could tie a string to a boat 1 inch above sea level strech it out over 28 ks and tie it to another boat . If the water was truly flat, the string would remain exactly 1 inch above the water, but no it would touch or go under the water even pulled taught. What do you say about this?

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

For someone who is such a huge supporter of Rowbotham, I find it strange that you neglect to come to his defense when his logic is brought to question.

Aww you bumped my old thread, I was sincerely hoping this was dead.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Megaman

  • 176
  • +0/-0
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #189 on: August 13, 2012, 12:38:31 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 13, 2012, 12:15:10 PM
Quote from: Megaman on August 13, 2012, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: Battery72 on July 29, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2012, 10:00:00 AM
Quote from: Battery72 on July 28, 2012, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: timme on July 28, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
So can anyone here provide proof that the earth is flat. I'm still waiting for it.

Mee too  ;D It's all based on one person's skill in dabating from the 1800s. It's all about how water is flat no matter what so how would that fit on a round Earth. Since they don't believe in gravity the Earth must be flat LOL. That's a joke because if you have a glass of water, change it's angle 45%. the wather will still be flat, but it's possible that the vessel can have a shape other that flat for the water to be flat.

If the earth is round all standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

It does Tom. You can measure this on the ocean. If you found a perfectly calm stretch of water over 28 kilometers yo could tie a string to a boat 1 inch above sea level strech it out over 28 ks and tie it to another boat . If the water was truly flat, the string would remain exactly 1 inch above the water, but no it would touch or go under the water even pulled taught. What do you say about this?

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

For someone who is such a huge supporter of Rowbotham, I find it strange that you neglect to come to his defense when his logic is brought to question.

Aww you bumped my old thread, I was sincerely hoping this was dead.

I am of the firm belief that Tom is incapable of defending Rowbotham....but I really want to see him try to attempt it.

Logged
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #190 on: August 15, 2012, 05:45:27 AM »

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:32:29 AM

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

I think you forgot to explain this picture, where a vast wave or swell on an otherwise extremely calm sea is hiding an entire cloud base:

 :P
Logged
Quote from: John Davis on January 11, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.
?

Megaman

  • 176
  • +0/-0
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #191 on: August 15, 2012, 02:41:03 PM »
Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:45:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:32:29 AM

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

I think you forgot to explain this picture, where a vast wave or swell on an otherwise extremely calm sea is hiding an entire cloud base:

 :P

You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.
Logged
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #192 on: August 15, 2012, 03:32:06 PM »
Why, thank you. And I actually took that picture, too, so I can verify the conditions and photographic equipment used.
Logged
Quote from: John Davis on January 11, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #193 on: August 15, 2012, 04:00:41 PM »
The explanation was in the very post you quoted.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:32:29 AM

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

The swells do not need to be as large as the hull/cloud to obscure it just as a dime does not need to be as large as an elephant to obscure it when you hold it up between you and an elephant 50 yards away.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 04:06:52 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #194 on: August 15, 2012, 04:13:04 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
The swells do not need to be as large as the hull/cloud to obscure it just as a dime does not need to be as large as an elephant to obscure it when you hold it up between you and an elephant 50 yards away.

Your analogy is flawed.  The ocean wave you're describing is not at eye level.  If you place that same dime upright on the ground, then there is no place you can put it where it will obscure the elephant.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
?

MrT

  • 211
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #195 on: August 15, 2012, 04:21:44 PM »
Quote from: garygreen on August 15, 2012, 04:13:04 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
The swells do not need to be as large as the hull/cloud to obscure it just as a dime does not need to be as large as an elephant to obscure it when you hold it up between you and an elephant 50 yards away.

Your analogy is flawed.  The ocean wave you're describing is not at eye level.  If you place that same dime upright on the ground, then there is no place you can put it where it will obscure the elephant.

And you've perfectly set Tom up for his standard post about how the horizon rises to eye level, along with a poor diagram from ENaG.  And since the horizon is somehow now at eye level for some reason, even a small wave can obscure the clouds...the clouds now! 

This site is hilarious. 
Logged
The above is not meant to be an attack or inflammatory, it's just what I think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't understand
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #196 on: August 15, 2012, 04:39:55 PM »
The horizon is at eye level. Google it.

Alternatively, look out your window.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 04:42:42 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #197 on: August 15, 2012, 04:42:08 PM »
Quote from: MrT on August 15, 2012, 04:21:44 PM
Quote from: garygreen on August 15, 2012, 04:13:04 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
The swells do not need to be as large as the hull/cloud to obscure it just as a dime does not need to be as large as an elephant to obscure it when you hold it up between you and an elephant 50 yards away.

Your analogy is flawed.  The ocean wave you're describing is not at eye level.  If you place that same dime upright on the ground, then there is no place you can put it where it will obscure the elephant.

And you've perfectly set Tom up for his standard post about how the horizon rises to eye level, along with a poor diagram from ENaG.  And since the horizon is somehow now at eye level for some reason, even a small wave can obscure the clouds...the clouds now! 

This site is hilarious.

It's not just the position of the dime up or down, it's how close it is to your eye. Any swell in the water would need to be over a mile away in that photo, at least, which was taken at an altitude of approximately 100 feet above sea level.
Logged
Quote from: John Davis on January 11, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #198 on: August 15, 2012, 04:46:07 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
The horizon is at eye level. Google it.

No, the horizon is not at eye level. Theodolite it. A perfectly level theodolite will show a horizon that is below the level of a hrizontal plane, and more so the higher its altitude is. At the altitude the photo was taken from, it could be easily demonstrated.
Logged
Quote from: John Davis on January 11, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #199 on: August 15, 2012, 04:54:45 PM »
Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
The horizon is at eye level. Google it.

No, the horizon is not at eye level. Theodolite it. A perfectly level theodolite will show a horizon that is below the level of a hrizontal plane, and more so the higher its altitude is. At the altitude the photo was taken from, it could be easily demonstrated.

Source?
Logged
?

Kendrick

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #200 on: August 15, 2012, 05:53:32 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:54:45 PM
Quote from: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
The horizon is at eye level. Google it.

No, the horizon is not at eye level. Theodolite it. A perfectly level theodolite will show a horizon that is below the level of a hrizontal plane, and more so the higher its altitude is. At the altitude the photo was taken from, it could be easily demonstrated.

Source?

Read Earth not a Globe.

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
IF a theodolite is placed on the sea shore, "levelled," and directed towards the sea, the line of the horizon will be a given amount below the cross-hair, and a certain "dip" or inclination from the level position will have to be made to bring the cross-hair and the sea-horizon together. If the theodolite is similarly fixed, but at a greater altitude, the space between the cross-hair and the sea horizon, and the dip of the instrument to bring them together, is also greater.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #201 on: August 15, 2012, 06:55:00 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
The horizon is at eye level. Google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Appearance_and_usage
Quote
In many contexts, especially perspective drawing, the curvature of the Earth is disregarded and the horizon is considered the theoretical line to which points on any horizontal plane converge (when projected onto the picture plane) as their distance from the observer increases. For observers near sea level the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is imperceptible to the naked eye[dubious – discuss] (but for someone on a 1000-meter hill looking out to sea the true horizon will be about a degree below a horizontal line).
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #202 on: August 15, 2012, 07:00:46 PM »
I was taught in college that Wikipedia is not a proper source for reference because anyone can edit it.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #203 on: August 15, 2012, 07:18:24 PM »
If you care to refute the quote that I provided, then feel free to do so.  Otherwise, I'll consider it to be as reliable a source as any on the net.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #204 on: August 15, 2012, 07:22:18 PM »
I was just stating a fact.  Read what you want to into it.
Logged
?

MrT

  • 211
  • +0/-0
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #205 on: August 15, 2012, 07:33:26 PM »
Quote from: jroa on August 15, 2012, 07:00:46 PM
I was taught in college that Wikipedia is not a proper source for reference because anyone can edit it.

I read on Wikipedia that Wikipedia being fallible is a myth. 
Logged
The above is not meant to be an attack or inflammatory, it's just what I think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't understand
?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #206 on: August 15, 2012, 07:36:29 PM »
Quote from: jroa on August 15, 2012, 07:22:18 PM
I was just being a lazy troll as usual.

Fixed that for you.  You really should try harder.
Logged
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 06, 2012, 09:44:46 AM
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #207 on: August 15, 2012, 07:45:38 PM »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 15, 2012, 07:36:29 PM
Quote from: jroa on August 15, 2012, 07:22:18 PM
I was just being a lazy troll as usual.

Fixed that for you.  You really should try harder.

Troll trolling a legitimate website.  I thought you would have given up by now, but I was wrong.  Permanoob.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #208 on: August 15, 2012, 08:16:17 PM »
Quote from: jroa on August 15, 2012, 07:22:18 PM
I was just stating a fact.  Read what you want to into it.

No, you stated your teacher's opinion, which, in this case, added nothing to the discussion.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"
« Reply #209 on: August 15, 2012, 08:40:39 PM »
No, I stated a school wide policy, which is a fact.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
« previous next »