I think your position is illogical

Hey everyone. I'm of the belief that the earth is round and here are my reasons;

The default position anyone can take on any claim is not knowing. Until you've received direct claims from reliable sources, are provided evidence to prove claims from reliable sources,  or perform an experiment (or pose a sound, logical argument for) your hypothesis yourself, you cannot claim you know anything.

I've read the FAQ on your wiki. It majorly focuses on refuting the current, established science. You cite several experiments in the process, how do we know any of those experiments are reliable?

I would respect the position of not knowing the geometric shape of the earth, but to claim it is flat is quite ridiculous. You end up having to invent all sorts of science to make your theory compatible.
 
More scientists believe the earth is round, and there are more experiments to prove this is the case. Even if there were experiments to contradict this, they are by far, a minority. Logically, this means that there is an almost unanimous agreement between scientists that the earth is round, and that there is a greater possibility that the majority are correct. If you allow me, I can use an analogy to demonstrate this.

A huge robbery occurs, and a hundred detectives are on the case. There are two suspects, suspect A and suspect B.
99 of all the detectives present evidence proving suspect A is guilty and suspect B is innocent.
1 detective presents evidence proving suspect B is guilty and suspect A innocent.

The chances that all 99 detectives are wrong, or are being payed to trick us all, are far lesser than the chance of that one detective to be correct, and perfectly honest.
That is of course, assuming that the detective is presenting valid evidence....

In the flat earth society's case, the evidence is NOT even valid. For instance:

" It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."

The sun isn't getting any smaller... it looks like its moving past the horizon.



If that model were true, I would see the sun all the time, even if it isn't directly above me, in a flat world, its light would still be able to reach me.
How is the sun moving in those directions? How old is the sun, what is it made of? How can it burn for millions of years if it is as small as you claim it is?
You're going to have to remodel all of science to fit your theory.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to your responses. I'm more interested on how you handle my first argument, if you're interested, I can point at some more fallacies on your FAQ. Thanks again.

Ohhhh Goooood. Another one to feed the fish.

Listen, dude, I tried this on my first post to. You're gonna get, go read the wiki, bendy light, thick atmosphere, Universal Accelerator, illusions (no real explanation for the sun going down, that question is always ignored), they'll say your eyes can only see so far away because they're "limited", and false perspective rules made up by a lunatic. Oh, they'll also say the sun in a spotlight, so is the moon, you can't see it when it's not shining on you.

Oh, don't ask about space travel. What ever you do. You'll attract Tom Bishop. That's always annoying.

I'd still like a proper response from one of the believers in the flat earth theory.
What evidence is there that the sun is a spotlight?

More scientists believe the earth is round, and there are more experiments to prove this is the case.

You cite several experiments in the process, how do we know any of those experiments are reliable?

Is ad populum logical now? How many of your experiments (eratosthenes, for example) are self-assuming? How many have you actually performed?

If that model were true, I would see the sun all the time, even if it isn't directly above me, in a flat world, its light would still be able to reach me.

Celestial light travels through medium of ever increasing refractive value. The idea is difficult to convey without a diagram, and the one that existed has since been lost.

How is the sun moving in those directions?

Eddies in the space time continuum, Arthur. (This is not his sofa).

How old is the sun, what is it made of? How can it burn for millions of years if it is as small as you claim it is?
You're going to have to remodel all of science to fit your theory.

For all appearances it looks to be nuclear. Fission or Fusion, no doubt. How am I to know precisely how long it has been burning? How old is the sun in your theory?

There is plenty of proof for a flat earth, Karkooshy. Luckly for you, you're at the perfect place to find it! A bit of forum lurking should reveal all the information you seek. Good hunting.

More scientists believe the earth is round, and there are more experiments to prove this is the case. Even if there were experiments to contradict this, they are by far, a minority. Logically, this means that there is an almost unanimous agreement between scientists that the earth is round, and that there is a greater possibility that the majority are correct.

We are smarter than those scientists.

Is ad populum logical now? How many of your experiments (eratosthenes, for example) are self-assuming? How many have you actually performed?

You're refuting the theory of a round earth, believing that the established scientific claims are some sort of conspiracy. My point was, why do you think the information from your scientists is any more reliable? Does the mere fact of them agreeing with your theories make them any more reliable? That's quite biased.
And yes, if a decision had been unanimously agreed upon by the majority of scientists, and a meagre minority is presenting a radically contrasting claim, then that minority better provide some valid evidence, instead of excuses such as:

The idea is difficult to convey without a diagram, and the one that existed has since been lost.

Or they'll be ignored.

All I'm saying, there's a greater chance for a smaller number of people to be lying, than there is a chance for a large number of people lying.

As for:

Eddies in the space time continuum, Arthur. (This is not his sofa).

I do not understand.

and

For all appearances it looks to be nuclear. Fission or Fusion, no doubt. How am I to know precisely how long it has been burning? How old is the sun in your theory?

The nuclear reaction on the sun turns its mass into energy. The sun's size is therefor very relevant to how old it is. The older it is, the longer the reaction, the greater its size would have to be for its current state to be as it is now. The sun is, according to modern calculations, four and a half billion years old and 1391000 kilometers in diameter (that's 864,327.33 miles), not the proposed 32 miles. That is a non trivial error.

There is plenty of proof for a flat earth, Karkooshy.

After months here all I've seen is "look out your window."  It might be helpful is you summarized at least a few of these no doubt numerous "proofs" instead of simply asserting their existence.

And still! We have no explanation for the huge discrepancy in the calculated distance between Sydney and Adelaide under the Flat Earth Hypothesis and the measured distance in the REAL WORLD.

Flat Earth Hypothesis? Calculated by determining the circumference of the disk at the latitude of the two cities and then the ratio of the circumference against the longitude delta between the two cities.

Flat Earth Hypothesis calculation: 1878 miles (3005 km)

Real world. Maps are published with this info. These maps are used EVERY DAY by people traveling about Australia.

Real World: 740 miles (1184 km)

Marconi, you're arguing with people who are determined to be right to the point of arrogance. Your points are ones that have been used again and again and yet they have convinced no one. I completely agree with you, but if the opponents believe that the sunrise/sunset is just an illusion, then you've got to understand that it's not that simple to change their minds.

Also;

We are smarter than those scientists.

That's a bold statement, Bishop, but I strongly disagree

Quote from: karkooshy

More scientists believe the earth is round, and there are more experiments to prove this is the case. Even if there were experiments to contradict this, they are by far, a minority. Logically, this means that there is an almost unanimous agreement between scientists that the earth is round, and that there is a greater possibility that the majority are correct.

We are smarter than those scientists.

I think I remember once writing about how you get off on the feeling of superiority you get from believing in a flat Earth.  Case in point.  The feeling of ecstasy that accompanies the belief that you're not only the most intelligent individual to ever live, but also more intelligent than everyone else combined, must be exquisite. 

The only reason you're even capable of having that opinion is that you intentionally keep yourself ignorant of what astronomers actually do, how they do it, and why.  You deny the very existence of astronomy's most fundamental and demonstrable methods.  I've made these resources available to you myself, you've just ignored them.

You can't explain why the Sun is always the same size.  You can't explain why there is nighttime.  You can't explain the appearance of the Moon or planets.  You can't explain basically anything that happens in the Southern Hemisphere.  You can't explain travel times, or navigation methods, or maps, or anything else.

And, most importantly, you can't explain why a theory that is so "true," written by people so much more intelligent than anyone else, could yield absolutely nothing of any material value to anyone.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2012, 04:24:16 PM

Quote from: karkooshy

More scientists believe the earth is round, and there are more experiments to prove this is the case. Even if there were experiments to contradict this, they are by far, a minority. Logically, this means that there is an almost unanimous agreement between scientists that the earth is round, and that there is a greater possibility that the majority are correct.

We are smarter than those scientists.

I think I remember once writing about how you get off on the feeling of superiority you get from believing in a flat Earth.  Case in point.  The feeling of ecstasy that accompanies the belief that you're not only the most intelligent individual to ever live, but also more intelligent than everyone else combined, must be exquisite. 

The only reason you're even capable of having that opinion is that you intentionally keep yourself ignorant of what astronomers actually do, how they do it, and why.  You deny the very existence of astronomy's most fundamental and demonstrable methods.  I've made these resources available to you myself, you've just ignored them.

You can't explain why the Sun is always the same size.  You can't explain why there is nighttime.  You can't explain the appearance of the Moon or planets.  You can't explain basically anything that happens in the Southern Hemisphere.  You can't explain travel times, or navigation methods, or maps, or anything else.

And, most importantly, you can't explain why a theory that is so "true," written by people so much more intelligent than anyone else, could yield absolutely nothing of any material value to anyone.

If you care enough to look in the Wiki and search through the forum you will find that those things have been explained.

I work with Astronomers in my profession every day. None of them seek to prove the existence of underlying phenomena. They build system upon system, theory upon theory, until there is so much fantasy that everything seemly fits. Empiricism has no place in astronomy. Astronomy is not a science. Astronomers are not "scientists". They to not seek to prove.

General Relativity, Dark Matter, Doppler Shift, etc., has not been demonstrated or proven. What examples do we see in nature where light is blue shifted when things approach you? There is no possible way astronomers can know that the theory of Doppler Shift of light is valid. Looking at a blue star only tells us that it is a blue star and nothing more. There is nothing empirical telling us that it is moving towards us at super-luminous speeds, let alone anything telling us its distance. The Doppler Shift of light is little more than a hypothesis -- one of many.

No one knows what powers the sun, as no one has sampled it directly. Early Spectroscopy told us that the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium, and so the hypothesis of Stellar Fusion was made to fit the observations, not the other way around. There are literally thousands of hypothesis' in astronomy. Very little of anything has fundamental evidence behind it -- yet if we ask an Astronomer if Stellar Fusion is true he will answer with a resounding 'Yes', parroting the answer of the school system, despite that Stellar Fusion has not been achieved in a lab and exists as an hypothesis only.

Astronomers can only observe and interpret. They cannot put the universe under controlled experimentation to come to the absolute truth of the matter, as chemists, biologists, et all. can do with their subject matter. Astronomers do not really know anything.

There is no possible way astronomers can know that the theory of Doppler Shift of light is valid. Looking at a blue star only tells us that it is a blue star and nothing more. There is nothing empirical telling us that it is moving towards us at super-luminous speeds, let alone anything telling us its distance. The Doppler Shift of light is little more than a hypothesis -- one of many.

Oh Tom.  There are plenty of ways to test it here on earth.  http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm

However, it wasn’t until 1938 that the experiment was actually performed with enough precision to discern the second order effect. In that year, Ives and Stilwell shot hydrogen atoms down a tube, with velocities (relative to the lab) ranging from about 0.8 to 1.3 times 106 m/sec. As the hydrogen atoms were in flight they emitted light in all directions.  Looking into the end of the tube (with the atoms coming toward them), Ives and Stilwell measured a prominent characteristic spectral line in the light coming forward from the hydrogen. This characteristic frequency n was Doppler shifted toward the blue by some amount dnapproach because the source was approaching them. They also placed a mirror at the opposite end of the tube, behind the hydrogen atoms, so they could look at the same light from behind, i.e., as the source was effectively moving away from them, red-shifted by some amount dnreceed. The following is a table of results from the original 1938 experiment for four different velocities of the hydrogen atom:

Well, the entire spectrum of light from the star is shifted, so it goes beyond appearances.  If we looked at the spectrum of light coming from it and saw that it was identical to the spectrum of light coming from, say, a yellow balloon, only shifted a set amount towards blue, then yes, something would probably be up.  Especially if the spectrum of light from a still blue balloon was different.

edit: and it appears Tom deleted the post I was responding to.  A shame.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2012, 10:32:58 PM

There is no possible way astronomers can know that the theory of Doppler Shift of light is valid. Looking at a blue star only tells us that it is a blue star and nothing more. There is nothing empirical telling us that it is moving towards us at super-luminous speeds, let alone anything telling us its distance. The Doppler Shift of light is little more than a hypothesis -- one of many.

Oh Tom.  There are plenty of ways to test it here on earth.  http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm

Quote

However, it wasn’t until 1938 that the experiment was actually performed with enough precision to discern the second order effect. In that year, Ives and Stilwell shot hydrogen atoms down a tube, with velocities (relative to the lab) ranging from about 0.8 to 1.3 times 106 m/sec. As the hydrogen atoms were in flight they emitted light in all directions.  Looking into the end of the tube (with the atoms coming toward them), Ives and Stilwell measured a prominent characteristic spectral line in the light coming forward from the hydrogen. This characteristic frequency n was Doppler shifted toward the blue by some amount dnapproach because the source was approaching them. They also placed a mirror at the opposite end of the tube, behind the hydrogen atoms, so they could look at the same light from behind, i.e., as the source was effectively moving away from them, red-shifted by some amount dnreceed. The following is a table of results from the original 1938 experiment for four different velocities of the hydrogen atom:

The Ives-Stillwell experiment is a fraud.

Also:

http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Thim-IEEE-2003.pdf

Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
background radiation.

The Ives-Stillwell experiment is a fraud.

Aetherometry, eh?  I certainly hope you're not using another source that claims that pi is 3.

Also:

http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html

Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
background radiation.

Rotating antennas, my goodness.  I doubt that either of us know well enough what's going on in this German site or with current research into relativistic effects to take anything meaningful from this abstract you no doubt hastily found.

Aetherometry, eh?  I certainly hope you're not using another source that claims that pi is 3.

Here's another source discussing critiques of the Ives-Stillwell experiment:

http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/relativity/1171/Does-relativistic-Doppler-shift-actually-exist

Rotating antennas, my goodness.  I doubt that either of us know well enough what's going on in this German site or with current research into relativistic effects to take anything meaningful from this abstract you no doubt hastily found.

I replaced that German link with a direct link to the English PDF: http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Thim-IEEE-2003.pdf

Tom is correct on the shaky viability of Doppler Shift. It has caused more than a few incidences of astronomer's calling Hubble's Law into question, only to have their research completely shut down. Many scientific institutions are attached to their narrow view of the world in much the same way as certain religions. It is quite ridiculous.

Here's another source discussing critiques of the Ives-Stillwell experiment:

http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/relativity/1171/Does-relativistic-Doppler-shift-actually-exist

The author of that post still seems to believe in the aether, but I can understand that one experiment isn't enough to convince people that something happens. 

When I'm feeling less lazy and it's not midnight perhaps I can put together a more comprehensive list of experiments.

I replaced that German link with a direct link to the English PDF: http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Thim-IEEE-2003.pdf

Thanks for the English link, but once again I'm not going to pretend to know enough about research into relativistic effects to be able to conclude anything from this experiment.  It doesn't seem to be saying that doppler effects never happen, just that it might not happen exactly as predicted by einstein.

I'd be curious to see the reaction it got, though, and if any other scientists attempted to replicate the experiment.

Hmm, a view from someone who might know what's going on better than I do.  http://mathpages.com/home/kmath120/kmath120.htm

Evidence of the sad state of science education can be seen in the IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, which recently published papers claiming to refute special relativity. This alleged refutation first surfaced in 2003 with the publication of a paper entitled "Absence of the Relativistic Transverse Doppler Shift at Microwave Frequencies" (Vol 52, No. 5).  The paper claimed that special relativity (as described in Einstein's paper of 1905 for example, or in any freshman physics text) predicts a frequency shift for an electromagnetic signal passing between a transmitter and receiver mutually at rest in some inertial frame, if the signal is relayed by two antennas moving in opposite directions transverse to the signal. Schematically the situation is as depicted in the figure below.

(Diagram here)

Now, it's obvious by inspection that there can be no Doppler shift between transmitter and receiver in this condition, with the relay antennas moving purely transversely to the signal, because the transmitter and receiver are mutually at rest, and the path length between them is not changing. Despite this, the IEEE paper argues that the rote application of the formulas of special relativity, as given in Einstein’s 1905 for example, somehow leads to a prediction of a Doppler shift factor of (1+v2)/(1-v2). The IEEE paper then describes an experiment designed to test this alleged prediction by placing relay antennas on the rims of two counter rotating disks between a microwave transmitter and receiver. The paper reports that no shift was observed, and from this it concludes that special relativity has been falsified. Needless to say (or so one would have thought), this is absurd, since special relativity unambiguously predicts zero Doppler shift for the purely transverse situation depicted above.

Once again, I return to my original question, what makes you think the scientists that do attempt to prove a flat earth, yield any more reliable results than the majority of the scientific community? What makes you so sure none of those scientist's experiments were fixed up? Have you performed their experiments yourself? Can you prove this?

If you're going to ignore obvious evidence then we can't get anywhere. I'm just amazed on how you can take a position, and throw out all sorts of evidence, while ignoring any other opposition...

Scientist A presents information the world is spherical.
Scientist B presents information the world is flat.

This community is in agreement with Scientist B. While IGNORING evidence from scientist A.
Why shouldn't I, as a believer of the round earth theory, do the same with scientists B, and simply ignore all your evidence saying its fixed up?

How can you prove its reliability?

The way I see it, you should accept evidence coming from sources almost unanimously agreed to be reliable, or adopt a solipsistic ideology and not believe in anything. But of course, even solipsists can't claim they "know" anything. So instead of trying to rebut evidence against your claims, why can't you please, summarize the BEST reason for believing in a flat earth.

Somehow Tom Bishop, with all his arrogance and ignorance, has been drawn here anyway. Maybe the mere fact that I said "space travel" has done it. He must use the search function with those words several times a day.

Tom, stop talking about things you know nothing about. You are not the smartest man on the planet, it is arrogant to clam it, even if you were.

Hmm, a view from someone who might know what's going on better than I do.  http://mathpages.com/home/kmath120/kmath120.htm

Quote

Evidence of the sad state of science education can be seen in the IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, which recently published papers claiming to refute special relativity. This alleged refutation first surfaced in 2003 with the publication of a paper entitled "Absence of the Relativistic Transverse Doppler Shift at Microwave Frequencies" (Vol 52, No. 5).  The paper claimed that special relativity (as described in Einstein's paper of 1905 for example, or in any freshman physics text) predicts a frequency shift for an electromagnetic signal passing between a transmitter and receiver mutually at rest in some inertial frame, if the signal is relayed by two antennas moving in opposite directions transverse to the signal. Schematically the situation is as depicted in the figure below.

(Diagram here)

Now, it's obvious by inspection that there can be no Doppler shift between transmitter and receiver in this condition, with the relay antennas moving purely transversely to the signal, because the transmitter and receiver are mutually at rest, and the path length between them is not changing. Despite this, the IEEE paper argues that the rote application of the formulas of special relativity, as given in Einstein’s 1905 for example, somehow leads to a prediction of a Doppler shift factor of (1+v2)/(1-v2). The IEEE paper then describes an experiment designed to test this alleged prediction by placing relay antennas on the rims of two counter rotating disks between a microwave transmitter and receiver. The paper reports that no shift was observed, and from this it concludes that special relativity has been falsified. Needless to say (or so one would have thought), this is absurd, since special relativity unambiguously predicts zero Doppler shift for the purely transverse situation depicted above.

Why does the author think that points on the rims of the two disks in the experiment are moving relative to each other? The two disks are moving in opposite directions, for one.

In the English PDF on page 1662 below the diagram of the experiment:

In order to avoid this uncertainty, both disks must rotate in opposite directions.

How can it be said that the points on the rims of two disks stacked on top of each other, moving in opposite directions, are moving relative to each other?

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on July 17, 2012, 10:59:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2012, 10:32:58 PM

There is no possible way astronomers can know that the theory of Doppler Shift of light is valid. Looking at a blue star only tells us that it is a blue star and nothing more. There is nothing empirical telling us that it is moving towards us at super-luminous speeds, let alone anything telling us its distance. The Doppler Shift of light is little more than a hypothesis -- one of many.

Oh Tom.  There are plenty of ways to test it here on earth.  http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm

Quote

However, it wasn’t until 1938 that the experiment was actually performed with enough precision to discern the second order effect. In that year, Ives and Stilwell shot hydrogen atoms down a tube, with velocities (relative to the lab) ranging from about 0.8 to 1.3 times 106 m/sec. As the hydrogen atoms were in flight they emitted light in all directions.  Looking into the end of the tube (with the atoms coming toward them), Ives and Stilwell measured a prominent characteristic spectral line in the light coming forward from the hydrogen. This characteristic frequency n was Doppler shifted toward the blue by some amount dnapproach because the source was approaching them. They also placed a mirror at the opposite end of the tube, behind the hydrogen atoms, so they could look at the same light from behind, i.e., as the source was effectively moving away from them, red-shifted by some amount dnreceed. The following is a table of results from the original 1938 experiment for four different velocities of the hydrogen atom:

The Ives-Stillwell experiment is a fraud.

Also:

http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Thim-IEEE-2003.pdf

Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
background radiation.

I'm sorry but what does "transverse Doppler shift" have to do with the Doppler shift of celestial bodies?

Not much really. Doppler shift, by the way, can be observed watching race cars. Take two high speed cameras, place them on the track facing opposite directions. You will notice a faint blue shift when the car is approaching, and a faint redshift when it is moving away. You will need the high speed camera so when you play it back in slow speed and change the contrast you can notice the colors. Saw the experiment on the discovery channel

I feel the topic is being hijacked
I'm still waiting for a response to my question.

I don't know if you've noticed (if you haven't go read some other threads similar to this), the topic is always hijacked and diverted, and the initial question is never answered.

Quote from: karkooshy

More scientists believe the earth is round, and there are more experiments to prove this is the case. Even if there were experiments to contradict this, they are by far, a minority. Logically, this means that there is an almost unanimous agreement between scientists that the earth is round, and that there is a greater possibility that the majority are correct.

We are smarter than those scientists.

Hahahaha!!!! I knew you always thought it in your head Tom, but I didn't think you had the arrogance to actually say it!

I'm sorry man, but these people who believe in the Flat Earth are insane. You arent going to change their mind, they're going to die believing this nonsense.

Just let them stew in their pit of the internet, with their vast "intelligence" and superiority to all mankind. We obviously should never have dared challenge them, look how obviously more intelligent and sophisticated they are! If you don't believe it, just ask them!

Well, I've decided there are far more important things in life than arguing with a bunch of self endowed middle-age, single, men. I'm going to take my beautiful girlfriend to the beach on our round Earth now, have a nice life.

I'm going to take my beautiful girlfriend to the beach on our round Earth now, have a nice life.

  Oh please, we all know you're going to watch anime, alone, in your dark, dank room.

Need proof?



I never have liked anime..