Common Sence

  • 56 Replies
  • 9581 Views
Common Sence
« on: December 29, 2006, 11:35:17 AM »
There seen to be a hell of a lot of grey areas and spaces in this theory. i.e

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole. Discussed in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7168 and http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361&highlight=magnetic+field

Q: How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?

Q: Explain the Coriolis force?

Q: Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?

Q: If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last I checked a light can't contain shadows.

Q: Explain fully the optical illusion causing sunrises and sunsets.


Surely a little common sence could be used to used here. What do you trust a patchy and mostly farfetched theory, i.e. flat earth. Or a theory which is proven by all the laws of physics, ROUND EARTH. It doesnt take much to work that one out. Also most of the FE arguments involve a conspiracy theory. I find it hard to believe that any government or individual would invest that much money or resources to keep a "secret" which serves them no apparent  benefits.

?

Wolfwood

  • 2328
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2006, 11:41:07 AM »
Explain gravity. I doubt you could, modern science is unable to do so last time I checked. There are plenty of holes in the RE model's basic design that science has yet to explain. You just don't know many of them because you've accepted the model as fact based on second hand information. If you pay attention you might learn something from this forum.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


Common Sence
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2006, 11:53:54 AM »
Actually i understand quite a few physics theories since i have covered them at uni  so im sure i understand them a hell of a lot better than you. Also which is easier to believe, a giant disc accelerating at 9.81ms per second or a round earth with gravity. Fair enough gravity is only a theory, but the theory holds up for many things. Also if you "Flat Earthers" dont believe in gravity why does it have this in the FAQ's "A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull. "

AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN KISS MY RING

?

GeoGuy

Common Sence
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2006, 11:59:52 AM »
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.

?

Astantia

  • 553
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2006, 12:04:14 PM »
Quote from: "Round till i die"
Actually i understand quite a few physics theories since i have covered them at uni  so im sure i understand them a hell of a lot better than you. Also which is easier to believe, a giant disc accelerating at 9.81ms per second or a round earth with gravity. Fair enough gravity is only a theory, but the theory holds up for many things. Also if you "Flat Earthers" dont believe in gravity why does it have this in the FAQ's "A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull. "

AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN KISS MY RING



1.  What theories do you understand?

2.  For me, a giant disc accelerating seems about right.

3.  Just because we don't believe that the earth has gravity means that no other object CAN have it.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

Common Sence
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2006, 12:18:28 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.



i was unaware of having any credibility to begin with

?

dantheman40k

  • 541
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2006, 12:47:42 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.
FE Pwnage Archive

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=8101.0


The Engineer is still a douchebag







.

?

yop69g

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2006, 12:56:26 PM »
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.

When a FEer can't argue, he says something frustrating in order to get something like this from a REer, so he can say that he has no credibility. If you read more, you'll catch this.

 :)
arth is spheric.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2006, 01:17:13 PM »
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.


One that has been brought up a thousand times, and answered, and on top of that he has the gall to defame the members of FES and make claims to an intelligence and depth of knowledge he clearly does not possess.
the cake is a lie

?

yop69g

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2006, 01:30:53 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.


One that has been brought up a thousand times, and answered, and on top of that he has the gall to defame the members of FES and make claims to an intelligence and depth of knowledge he clearly does not possess.

All of the FEers doesn't posse this level of intelligence and depth of knowledge because no one answered his questions.

You understand ? No - one - answered - his - questions.

It proves that FEers doesn't believe that the Earth is flat, but believe that the Earth is not round. Which is VERY different.

Also, if REers could explain these questions but FEers can't, it proves that the RE theory is more valuable, again and again.

Look at other threads too. You'll notice that it's always the same thing : a REer asks a question to FEers. Those people can't answer, so they answer with a question that has no links with the question of the REer. What a proof of depth of knowledge!
arth is spheric.

*

Desu

  • 742
  • +1/-0
  • yaranaika.
Common Sence
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2006, 01:43:58 PM »
Quote from: "yop69g"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.


One that has been brought up a thousand times, and answered, and on top of that he has the gall to defame the members of FES and make claims to an intelligence and depth of knowledge he clearly does not possess.

All of the FEers doesn't posse this level of intelligence and depth of knowledge because no one answered his questions.

You understand ? No - one - answered - his - questions.

It proves that FEers doesn't believe that the Earth is flat, but believe that the Earth is not round. Which is VERY different.

Also, if REers could explain these questions but FEers can't, it proves that the RE theory is more valuable, again and again.

Look at other threads too. You'll notice that it's always the same thing : a REer asks a question to FEers. Those people can't answer, so they answer with a question that has no links with the question of the REer. What a proof of depth of knowledge!

Error.
Quote from: sam712
It must suck living in Richmond.
Since June 2006.

?

yop69g

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2006, 01:46:24 PM »
Quote from: "Desu"
Quote from: "yop69g"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.


One that has been brought up a thousand times, and answered, and on top of that he has the gall to defame the members of FES and make claims to an intelligence and depth of knowledge he clearly does not possess.

All of the FEers doesn't posse this level of intelligence and depth of knowledge because no one answered his questions.

You understand ? No - one - answered - his - questions.

It proves that FEers doesn't believe that the Earth is flat, but believe that the Earth is not round. Which is VERY different.

Also, if REers could explain these questions but FEers can't, it proves that the RE theory is more valuable, again and again.

Look at other threads too. You'll notice that it's always the same thing : a REer asks a question to FEers. Those people can't answer, so they answer with a question that has no links with the question of the REer. What a proof of depth of knowledge!

Error.

Shut the f*ck up if you've nothing intelligent to say.

I know that you're stupid, you don't have to prove it to me as many times as you're doing since a couple of days.

If you want to prove me that you're intelligent, do it. If not, just shut up.
arth is spheric.

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2006, 02:10:04 PM »
the earth is flat because jesus says so.

?

dantheman40k

  • 541
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2006, 03:03:07 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


Why? He brings up a valid point.


One that has been brought up a thousand times, and answered, and on top of that he has the gall to defame the members of FES and make claims to an intelligence and depth of knowledge he clearly does not possess.


Youre retarded, it has not been answered a thousand times you fucking moron do us all a favour and shoot yourself in the head.
FE Pwnage Archive

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=8101.0


The Engineer is still a douchebag







.

?

Wolfwood

  • 2328
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2006, 03:42:18 PM »
I find it amusing that people are starting to mistake me for an FE'er now :D

I am learning master Midgard!

Actually Gravity is indeed just a theory, I asked you to explain it and you couldn't. You can give a long winded theory with some basic ideas supporting it but that isn't really explaining it now is it?

Something RE'ers like to do is instantly resort to insults when they get confused... Wait thats human nature! When something is experienced that an individual human does not know or understand, his initial reaction is to attack it. In a forum the only way to attack something or someone you don't understand is to insult them.

And I see no valid points. He brought up a buncha questions from the Q&A that were listed as unansweared. Many FE'ers have their opinions on the answears but none have been accepted as the standard yet.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


?

Astantia

  • 553
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2006, 03:56:10 PM »
Quote from: "I, earlier in this same fucking thread:"
Quote from: "Round till i die"
Actually i understand quite a few physics theories since i have covered them at uni  so im sure i understand them a hell of a lot better than you. Also which is easier to believe, a giant disc accelerating at 9.81ms per second or a round earth with gravity. Fair enough gravity is only a theory, but the theory holds up for many things. Also if you "Flat Earthers" dont believe in gravity why does it have this in the FAQ's "A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull. "

AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN KISS MY RING



1.  What theories do you understand?

2.  For me, a giant disc accelerating seems about right.

3.  Just because we don't believe that the earth has gravity means that no other object CAN have it.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

Wolfwood

  • 2328
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2006, 04:00:19 PM »
Well right now RE has a theory of gravity that could, for all intents and purposes, be described as magical energy for all we know about it.

And it has been stated there is no difference between Acceleration and Gravity in terms of the gravitational effect that occurs. Well except for the fact that we as humans can reproduce acceleration at will so naturally we understand it better.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


?

tmania

Common Sence
« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2006, 11:57:57 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"


1.  What theories do you understand?

2.  For me, a giant disc accelerating seems about right.

3.  Just because we don't believe that the earth has gravity means that no other object CAN have it.


Explain gravity, you can't say that because RE'ers can't explain gravity it doesn't exist but then turn around and say that other shit has gravity.

now I'm no physisist, and i probably spelled it wrong, but i think an explanation for gravity on earth could be caused by the spinning of earth combined with the pull on the planet by the sun. So we are flinging toward the sun and the earth is also spinning.[/b]

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #18 on: December 30, 2006, 01:52:19 PM »
Even in RE, that has fuck all to do with how gravity works.
the cake is a lie

?

Astantia

  • 553
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2006, 01:35:58 AM »
Right now, the best (and usually accepted) method for gravity is that objects with mass tend to move towards other objects with mass.

The mechanism is rather undefined though.


So, let me rephrase what I said.

3. Just because we don't believe that the earth has the ability to naturally attract other objects means that no other object CAN have it.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

HiveLord

  • 37
  • +0/-0
Re: Common Sence
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2006, 08:02:47 AM »
Quote from: "Round till i die"
There seen to be a hell of a lot of grey areas and spaces in this theory. i.e

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole. Discussed in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7168 and http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361&highlight=magnetic+field

It is explained in the first of those threads

Quote

Q: How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?

Held in place by the ice wall?


Quote

Q: Explain the Coriolis force?


Quote
The sun is not rotating, the air mass that is heated directly below it is. As the sun moves in its orbit, it imparts a spin, in oppostite directions, on either side of its orbit.



Quote

Q: Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?


I don't know. Maybe it doesn't

Quote

Q: If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last I checked a light can't contain shadows.



They aren't shadows, they are imperfections in the light - in the same way that a bulb with black paint on it would have dark areas

Quote

Q: Explain fully the optical illusion causing sunrises and sunsets.




Quote

Surely a little common sence could be used to used here. What do you trust a patchy and mostly farfetched theory, i.e. flat earth. Or a theory which is proven by all the laws of physics, ROUND EARTH. It doesnt take much to work that one out. Also most of the FE arguments involve a conspiracy theory. I find it hard to believe that any government or individual would invest that much money or resources to keep a "secret" which serves them no apparent  benefits.


The laws of physics which don't make sense?
Gravity?  :lol:

Also note that I didn't mention the conspiracy in my answers.

Re: Common Sence
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2007, 02:35:44 PM »
Quote from: "HiveLord"
Quote from: "Round till i die"
There seen to be a hell of a lot of grey areas and spaces in this theory. i.e

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole. Discussed in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7168 and http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361&highlight=magnetic+field

It is explained in the first of those threads

Quote

Q: How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?

Held in place by the ice wall?


Quote

Q: Explain the Coriolis force?


Quote
The sun is not rotating, the air mass that is heated directly below it is. As the sun moves in its orbit, it imparts a spin, in oppostite directions, on either side of its orbit.



Quote

Q: Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?


I don't know. Maybe it doesn't

Quote

Q: If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last I checked a light can't contain shadows.



They aren't shadows, they are imperfections in the light - in the same way that a bulb with black paint on it would have dark areas

Quote

Q: Explain fully the optical illusion causing sunrises and sunsets.




Quote

Surely a little common sence could be used to used here. What do you trust a patchy and mostly farfetched theory, i.e. flat earth. Or a theory which is proven by all the laws of physics, ROUND EARTH. It doesnt take much to work that one out. Also most of the FE arguments involve a conspiracy theory. I find it hard to believe that any government or individual would invest that much money or resources to keep a "secret" which serves them no apparent  benefits.


The laws of physics which don't make sense?
Gravity?  :lol:

Also note that I didn't mention the conspiracy in my answers.




Why dont u go and see this Magic ice wall then

*

Sanirius

  • 289
  • +0/-0
  • ~rawr~
Common Sence
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2007, 02:41:20 PM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
the earth is flat because jesus says so.


jesus said nothing about the earth's shape  :roll:

*

Sanirius

  • 289
  • +0/-0
  • ~rawr~
Common Sence
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2007, 02:44:34 PM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Explain gravity. I doubt you could, modern science is unable to do so last time I checked. There are plenty of holes in the RE model's basic design that science has yet to explain. You just don't know many of them because you've accepted the model as fact based on second hand information. If you pay attention you might learn something from this forum.


Ok take a big brigde with alot of parts.. if u take away a little piece on the top it wont collapse. it will maybe seem unstable (the bridge is RE)... all the stable parts is scientifical evidence... now take the FE model. u take away a screw, and it will all just fall apart, cuz the theory's other parts dont match, or arent strong enough.

?

Big N

  • 192
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2007, 07:34:26 PM »
Wolfwood, there you go again proving that Flat Earthers are completely ignorant, and go out of their way to refuse to do any research on why the round earth theory works.

You claim about proving gravity that "modern science is unable to do so last time I checked."

Albert Einstein developed a rather logical theory:

Everything in the universe, in space, is in perpetual free-fall. However, every particle of space creates a bend in space. The larger the particle or mass, the larger the bend in space. This bend causes other nearby particles to fall in the direction of the larger mass.

Imagine it like this: you have a large sheet stretched rather taught. You put a pencil somewhere on the sheet. You then place a bowling ball on the center of the sheet. The pencil will fall towards the bowling ball. The sheet represents space, the bowling ball represent a mass, and the bend in the sheet represents the bend in space that a large mass creates.

The funniest thing though is that theory was developed by Albert Einstein. You probably think he's a smart guy, eh? After all, your signature is, at the time of writing, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. -- Albert Einstein." I guess one can assume from this theory, and Einstein's numerous other theories, that Einstein was, in fact, a believer in the round earth.

Some flat earthers are some of the most slef-fulfilling ignoramuses I've ever communicated with. Honestly, you people piss and whine and piss and moan about how you have no resources to conduct tests, but you refuse to even do any research.

You have very little background in physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geology, but you claim to know so much about the planet. Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein; all either had very little money to work with or they did not have the advanced computers and calculators that we have today. Instead of claiming outlandish facts like you people, they set out with a problem and worked to find a conclusion. And it's not like they're the only ones. There are numerous other scientists with very little to work with, but end up discovering the most basic and fundamental laws of the universe.

So please, all of you flat earthers, and even those round earthers who don't understand physics and the such, please, do some research. It doesn't hurt to learn.

EDIT:
Quote
Actually Gravity is indeed just a theory, I asked you to explain it and you couldn't. You can give a long winded theory with some basic ideas supporting it but that isn't really explaining it now is it?


Wolfwood, you are so full of crap it is practically shooting out your ass. That exact statement can be said about FET, because with FET all you're doing is giving "a long winded theory with some basic ideas supporting it but that isn't really explaining it now is it?" Hypocritical ignoramus.
It's quite remarkable really that both Israel and Palestine have no qualms about slaughtering the crap out of each other - but they are perfectly willing to work together jovially and hide a secret that wouldn't make much difference to the world. -rdethgy

?

sodapop112

  • 264
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2007, 07:46:51 PM »
Quote:

Q: Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?






Quote
I don't know. Maybe it doesn't

   excellent comment
but the real reason is


because the electomagnetic force of the water dissipates the ships hull, making is essentially invisable to the untrained eye. [/url]
he kinds of equations that they have now are the kinds of equations you would get in an approximation scheme to some underlying theory, but nobody knows what the underlying theory is.

discover magazine

?

phaseshifter

  • 841
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2007, 09:06:47 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You have officially lost all credibility, Round.


That never stopped anyone here.

Quote
Actually Gravity is indeed just a theory, I asked you to explain it and you couldn't. You can give a long winded theory with some basic ideas supporting it but that isn't really explaining it now is it?


Gravity seems like some kind of life line for FEers, it's the only thing  I ever hear from them.

You can use the theory of universal gravitation, or general relativity, or modern physics to make accurate predictions of gravitational phenomenons, and everything will always match.

Gravity CAN be explained, it already has been. Now, as for knowing, WHY gravity exists and does what it does, what would we gain from knowing that?

RE can predict  most known phenomenons with 100% accuracy, reproduce them , or make smaller scaled models of them (again with close to 100% accuracy in the results) FE can't do this, it will never be able to do this (otherwise, it would actually be a theory) and I'm sure you'll agree that FE has many, many more unknowns than RE. So in that respect, the OP was correct.

Quote
Just because we don't believe that the earth has gravity means that no other object CAN have it.


1. I think he was refering to the fact that some FE will deny that gravity exists at all, and then turn around and tell you that the sun and/or moon have gravvitational fields.

2. Gravity is a property of all matter with mass, so if the sun has a gravitationnal field, then the earth and everything else in the universe does as well. Either everything does, or nothing does. The earth is made of matter just like everything else, so it's impossible to have some planets with it, and some without, that is an illogical statment.

Quote
Well right now RE has a theory of gravity that could, for all intents and purposes, be described as magical energy for all we know about it


That is not correct. Magic cannot be calculated and predicted and cannot be shown to be an observable phenomenon in nature. Gravity can, and is.

Quote
now I'm no physisist, and i probably spelled it wrong, but i think an explanation for gravity on earth could be caused by the spinning of earth combined with the pull on the planet by the sun. So we are flinging toward the sun and the earth is also spinning.


Actually, all objects with mass posses a gravitational field that increases in intensity as the mass increases. The more massive the object, the greater the field, earth is several times more masive than you, so you "stick" to it. You also have your own gravitational field, but we puny humans don't generate a field of any significance.

Quote
Even in RE, that has frak all to do with how gravity works.


That is correct, even though I don't know what frak means. But note the earth's rotation DOES affect the earth's gravitational pull.

Quote
Just because we don't believe that the earth has the ability to naturally attract other objects means that no other object CAN have it.


Like I explained earlier, the very notion of gravity makes this scenario impossible. You just said yourself that it was due to object's mass, so you should understand that. Are you saying the earth has no mass?

Quote
Held in place by the ice wall?


You'll agree that there is no ice wall covering the sky.

Quote
The sun is not rotating, the air mass that is heated directly below it is. As the sun moves in its orbit, it imparts a spin, in oppostite directions, on either side of its orbit.


How does that work? According to your explanation, the Coriolis force would vary depending on temperature and cloud cover, and would be inexistant at night. Since we know that this does not happen, your explanation is invalid. Not to mention that people in the southern part of north america would notice that clouds are always moving from east to west when facing south, which is also not the case.

Quote
They aren't shadows, they are imperfections in the light - in the same way that a bulb with black paint on it would have dark areas


I fail to see how a bulb with black paint on it qualifies as an imperfection of the light. In any case, it's easily disproven by looking at the moon with a telescope. That explanation wasn't even backed up by anything.

Quote
The laws of physics which don't make sense?
Gravity?


What's your point? That doesn't say anything.

Quote
because the electomagnetic force of the water dissipates the ships hull, making is essentially invisable to the untrained eye


There is NO dicipation. The hull isn't blurry or faded, you just can't see it AT ALL. Would you care to explain how exactly that phenomenon works and what causes it? And what electromagnetic force are you talking about here? As far as I know, water isn't radioactive. And if it's merely invisible to the "untrained eye" why doesn't the hull become visible if you take a picture?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

Mr. Smammi

  • 33
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2007, 09:15:17 PM »
Flat-Earthers seem to have an aura of ignorance floating about them. If there is such an ice wall, then visit it yourself and take a picture. I'd like to see it. Don't you dare find a long glacier to support your theory, though.
URL=http://imageshack.us][/URL]
You will submit.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
  • +0/-0
Common Sence
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2007, 10:39:54 PM »
Quote from: "Mr. Smammi"
Flat-Earthers seem to have an aura of ignorance floating about them. If there is such an ice wall, then visit it yourself and take a picture. I'd like to see it. Don't you dare find a long glacier to support your theory, though.


If I did go and took such a picture, would you accept it? Would you believe me when I told you I had not altered it in Photoshop? If not, why do you accept NASA's pictures of Earth from space as proof of Earth's rotundity?
the cake is a lie

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Common Sence
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2007, 11:57:33 PM »
That's funny. You see, my common sense tells me that common sense is spelled "common sense."

~D-Draw