12 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadGiven that you are the flat earther not me, it seems obvious that the problem is your reading comprehension and not my use of words.
Given that you are the flat earther not me, it seems obvious that the problem is your reading comprehension and not my use of words.
[b]If you wish for others to understand your points,
Oh I am quite sure they do. It is you that is having difficulties.
Both links completely eradicated your claims
No they didn't.
Sorry, but posting a li ...[text shortened]... make a wild unsubstantiated claim about it, and I laugh in your face at your ridiculous antics.[/b]
As I have expressed countless times, my primary reasons for rejecting a globe have zero to do with reading but, instead, rely on readily verified observations--- observations, I will add, which have yet to be dispelled by anyone herein or anywhere else.
No they didn't.
Sorry, but posting a link then making wild claims about it does not constitute 'eradication'. The contents at the referenced links have to be relevant and make your case.
They do not.
...
On that page, apparently yes. So far, that is all you have been able to demonstrate.
...
But which claim is sadly unsubstantiated by the provided links.
Care to try again?
It's a good thing your urine is a different color than other body fluids: that way you can tell if you're coming or going.
I didn't support my claim with any substantive proof.
Until I did support my claim with substantive proof.
And then I didn't support my claim with any substantive proof.
Thankfully, rational people can actually read the link I provided, either by actually following the link or reading my quote from the same.
Of the three times you guessed, at least you got it right once.
Good job, little buddy!
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell you clearly have great difficulty reading given that the problems with your ridiculous beliefs have been pointed out many times over, yet you consistently claim never to have spotted any such posts. Hilarious how you are blind to your own blindness.
As I have expressed countless times, my primary reasons for rejecting a globe have zero to do with reading but, instead, rely on readily verified observations--- observations, I will add, which have yet to be dispelled by anyone herein or anywhere else.
I didn't support my claim with any substantive proof.
I noticed.
Until I did support my claim with substantive proof.
And then I didn't support my claim with any substantive proof.
Take your meds.
Thankfully, rational people can actually read the link I provided, either by actually following the link or reading my quote from the same.
Yes they can.
And they won't be finding what you claim is there.
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadLike I said: you cannot wake up a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Well you clearly have great difficulty reading given that the problems with your ridiculous beliefs have been pointed out many times over, yet you consistently claim never to have spotted any such posts. Hilarious how you are blind to your own blindness.
[b]I didn't support my claim with any substantive proof.
I noticed.
Until I did s ...[text shortened]... my quote from the same.
Yes they can.
And they won't be finding what you claim is there.[/b]
Good luck, twhitehead.
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen an anonymous poster on the internet claims to be the only person in the world who is awake, then chances are hes not the Buddha reincarnated, but merely a mad man.
Like I said: you cannot wake up a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Good luck, twhitehead.
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are the one that started threads in a forum that is quite clearly not suited for you. Its titled 'science', something you clearly know nothing about, and don't want to know anything about.
I don't mind that you're sleeping, but, hey: would you mind not snoring so loud?
13 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd you're a nearly complete imbecile who is able to understand basic concepts, but refuses to do so.
You are the one that started threads in a forum that is quite clearly not suited for you. Its titled 'science', something you clearly know nothing about, and don't want to know anything about.
So you got that going for ya.
Now--- kindly--- pound sand.
13 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour empathy meter is stuck on you; your assessment of most everything is askew, so when you use your error paint and spray it on anything, I can't get too upset--- not really even upset at all, in actuality.
Getting angry I see. Did you not like me pointing out that you were fooled by a YouTube video and came up short when you actually tried to substantiate it?
It's like seeing my three year old make a mess; not knowing anything other than herself, the best handling of the situation is to patiently walk her through correct thinking.
Fortunately, she's learning!
You?
Not so much.
13 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo insult intended or conveyed.
Insults of that nature from a flat earther just don't work. You need some credibility to get away with acting superior.
When you have zero credibility, you need arguments with substance (something you lack).
It is merely a fact that you talk out of your ass as a rule, and have as much as integrity as Clinton who thought it appropriate to "cleverly" quibble over the definition of 'is' in front of the entire world.
You lack any intellectual value system to confer credibility upon anyone or to even properly assess the merit of any concept which wasn't spoonfed to you by Wikipedia, so your attempts of admonishment are without weight.
13 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonhouseExcept he isn't rattling my chain. I am having a laugh at his expense. He started off all smug thinking he knew how NASA predicts eclipses, but when it came to producing the evidence he realized it simply want there, and is now trying to hide that behind a show of bravado. Hilarious.
Hey T, get the picture yet? He will just keep spouting nonsense and loving every minute of it knowing he has rattled your chain.
13 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat isn't hilarious, but instead sad is that even when your nose is pushed into it, even when you acknowledge that it has been shown to you from NASA itself, it can magically be both confirmed AND denied that their predictions came from Fred.
Except he isn't rattling my chain. I am having a laugh at his expense. He started off all smug thinking he knew how NASA predicts eclipses, but when it came to producing the evidence he realized it simply want there, and is now trying to hide that behind a show of bravado. Hilarious.
Only in your bizarre thinking is such a thing possible.
I would ask how you reconcile the fact that NASA says their "predictive model" comes from Fred can possibly also mean they don't get their model from Fred, but frankly, I simply don't care.
Now, enjoy the last word, since you've already shown it is of supreme importance to you.