07 Jun 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadHate is not an accurate assessment of my consideration of the man.
I note that you really hate him, but never have any actual criticisms of what he has to say. He must really be so right on the money that it gets to you. (and I suspect Sam Harris would be the first to state that he is not claiming to be 'an authority' at all, but rather his arguments stand up for themselves. The great think about being able to think for ...[text shortened]... ng we learn to do without when we grow up. It also helps us get past thinking the world is flat.
I consider him a fraud, but I'm sure he's a really nice guy in person.
At length I tore into some claptrap he was waxing ignorant on awhile ago, and I'm certain there have been at least a handful of other times I'd given his crap the same treatment.
You see, that's what thinking people do: they consider another's line of thinking, compare and contrast it with their own and then formulate their response to the result.
It is noted how your response to the two questions posted has been non-existent.
If questioning the shape of the earth is as simpleton-minded as you suggest, surely responding to either or both of the questions would be child's play.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYet you didn't.
You see, that's what thinking people do: they consider another's line of thinking, compare and contrast it with their own and then formulate their response to the result.
It is noted how your response to the two questions posted has been non-existent.
What two questions would those be?
If questioning the shape of the earth is as simpleton-minded as you suggest, surely responding to either or both of the questions would be child's play.
I responded to your flat earther nonsense at length in the relevant thread a long time ago as well you know. You just kept on insisting that you were right and everyone else was wrong and ignoring any responses that demonstrated that you were wrong. It was something of a record for stubborn stupidity on this forum and that's saying something.
If you claim I didn't answer two questions, it is most likely that I did, and you ignored the answers.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTracking down something unrelated for another obstinate poster, I ran across a few of yours.
Yet you didn't.
[b]It is noted how your response to the two questions posted has been non-existent.
What two questions would those be?
If questioning the shape of the earth is as simpleton-minded as you suggest, surely responding to either or both of the questions would be child's play.
I responded to your flat earther nonsense at leng ...[text shortened]... claim I didn't answer two questions, it is most likely that I did, and you ignored the answers.[/b]
As I suspected, you were unable to answer either one.
You nearly pulled it off, were it not for the actual record of posts.
Good effort, though.
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is noted that you will not say what these two questions I supposedly didn't answer actually are.
Tracking down something unrelated for another obstinate poster, I ran across a few of yours.
As I suspected, you were unable to answer either one.
As suspected, you are probably lying.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe these were his 2 questions:
It is noted that you will not say what these two questions I supposedly didn't answer actually are.
[b]As I suspected, you were unable to answer either one.
As suspected, you are probably lying.[/b]
HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECTS WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
and
WHY DOES NASA LIE?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe answers to which are "Objects that are supposed to be below the horizon are in fact below the horizon"
I believe these were his 2 questions:
HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECTS WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
and
WHY DOES NASA LIE?
and "NASA does not in general lie, and certainly doesn't about this topic"
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe answers to which are "Objects that are supposed to be below the horizon are in fact below the horizon"
The answers to which are "Objects that are supposed to be below the horizon are in fact below the horizon"
and "NASA does not in general lie, and certainly doesn't about this topic"
Except when they're not because they are observable.
and "NASA does not in general lie, and certainly doesn't about this topic"
Except when they do, which is with literally every single image they've ever produced of the earth from space.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhttp://www.timeforchess.com/forum/general/flat-earth.167344/page-74
[b]The answers to which are "Objects that are supposed to be below the horizon are in fact below the horizon"
Except when they're not because they are observable.
and "NASA does not in general lie, and certainly doesn't about this topic"
Except when they do, which is with literally every single image they've ever produced of the earth from space.[/b]
Why does this same discussion have to follow so many different threads? It is already insane enough in one thread.
Originally posted by finneganYou're asking the wrong person.
http://www.timeforchess.com/forum/general/flat-earth.167344/page-74
Why does this same discussion have to follow so many different threads? It is already insane enough in one thread.
I didn't bring it into this thread.
P.S. You can blame googlefudged for introducing the topic to this thread one page prior to this current one.
P.P.S. As "insane" as it seems, the two questions remain unanswered.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCome sir, I answered them perfectly thoroughly in the flat Earth thread. Maybe you just need time to digest them?
You're asking the wrong person.
I didn't bring it into this thread.
P.S. You can blame googlefudged for introducing the topic to this thread one page prior to this current one.
P.P.S. As "insane" as it seems, the two questions remain unanswered.
Edit. Here they are again:
HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECT WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
Distant objects below the horizon are 'not' visible. I don't think you have successfully evidenced otherwise. Taking our agreed curvature of the Earth (8 inches per mile) I don't see how it can be argued that objects will not eventually drop below the horizon and out of view.
WHY DOES NASA LIE?
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if NASA have tidied up images or made exaggerations to enhance their reputation, secure funding etc. All large organizations are arguably guilty of lying,at some time or another. - That said, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It is not a reasonable conclusion that, because NASA lies, the Earth is therefore flat and we haven't been to the moon.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou know, you're just really peeving finnegan on...
Come sir, I answered them perfectly thoroughly in the flat Earth thread. Maybe you just need time to digest them?
Edit. Here they are again:
HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECT WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
Distant objects below the horizon are 'not' visible. I don't think you have successfully evidenced otherwise. Taking our agr ...[text shortened]... conclusion that, because NASA lies, the Earth is therefore flat and we haven't been to the moon.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWith respect sir, I don't think that would make much of a novel. (I would advise going down the cartoon route).
Say, I have a novel idea!
What say we cross pollinate this thread with that one and see what Coca-Cola moon base we can get to evolve?