paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 get some homework done before you come back in here chattin shit x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 good enough for the economist, below dilly though apparently,. yet again we are bombarded by the trolls in this thread, who's best excuse for being here, is that the thread should be closed! walters https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 1 minute ago, paul's got wright said: good enough for the economist https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-21 Did you read the article? It's very dismissive of flat theory and just puts it down to a nonsensical conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 1 minute ago, mojomonkey said: Did you read the article? It's very dismissive of flat theory and just puts it down to a nonsensical conspiracy theory. "Did you read the article?" ... what do you think mojo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 1 minute ago, paul's got wright said: "Did you read the article?" ... what do you think mojo? Would it really hurt to give a simple yes or no? I read it and gave my quick appraisal, how about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 @paul's got wright You don’t discuss things scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: Would it really hurt to give a simple yes or no? I read it and gave my quick appraisal, how about you? would it really hurt you to use your common sense and have a little think to yourself before you ask me naive questions mojo? i posted the link so what do you think? do you think i read the article? the content bias is of no matter to me, plenty of that in here. it's a part of the discussion. . the economist is reporting on the subject. so it's good enough for in here then, is my point. so the big girl's blouses who cannot handle the scientific discussion should go and read a thread they enjoy, instead of coming in here trying to bully people not to discuss the topic, wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: would it really hurt you to use your common sense and have a little think to yourself before you ask me naive questions mojo? i posted the link so what do you think? do you think i read the article? the content bias is of no matter to me, plenty of that in here. it's a part of the discussion. . the economist is reporting on the subject. so it's good enough for in here then, is my point. so the big girl's blouses who cannot handle the scientific discussion should go and read a thread they enjoy, instead of coming in here trying to bully people not to discuss the topic, wouldn't you agree? Why are you being so agressive, i only politely asked a very simple question. What is your take on that article you posted the link to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 23 minutes ago, Chinahand said: @paul's got wright You don’t discuss things scientifically. total false claim china, and completely unnecessary. you are not privy to my scientific discussions, this being a small thread on an anonymous forum. you would be foolish to assume anything, based on my responses to you, and the likes of the walter brigade in here. if people want an open discussion then i'm all for it. natural science china remember, you have to be able to touch it and examine it. measure it etc. how does your cloud shadows theory, stand up in the real world? where do you get the measurements from the clouds to the sun? not something you have done is it. it's a mental conception, theorised but not actually tested and verified by you, nor anyone else in this thread i suspect. so it still stands to reason that these are beliefs held by people who were taught they live on a spinning ball in space, since they were little children. not a shred of scientific proof between the lot of you. yes china you put the well known case across and actually understand the model. can anyone else in here truly say the same thing? i very much doubt it. so for most people in here it comes down to the fact that for them, other people who are smarter than them figured it out before they could, and have now told them how the world is and they fully accept that. so it's their belief system, as it is yours china. no matter how much you think you know, you have never really done the required exploration of earthy and space to know for your self. that's what makes the topic so interesting. people have different beliefs. but some people are so adamant that what they believe is the truth, just like some religions. dilly and utred are just poor sports who are zealous about their belief system, to the point they won't even allow open discussion on a topic that has received large viewing figures and responses. if the thread is such a threat to their beliefs they should simply not come into it. clearly they cant handle the discussion of opposing beliefs to their own x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 39 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: Would it really hurt to give a simple yes or no? I read it and gave my quick appraisal, how about you? You do realise he's just trolling (in the classic sense of the term), dont you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: Why are you being so agressive, i only politely asked a very simple question. What is your take on that article you posted the link to? im not mojo you are misinterpreting my post and intent. i know what you asked and you got the reply you needed. please don't bore me with your pretense that you are somehow a reformed character! i have read every post in this thread at least 3 times if not more. do you forget your lack of manners in our previous posts to each other? i am not obliged to answer naive loaded questions. thought you had cottoned on by now. i have nothing to be aggressive about. this is a scientific discussion so stop assuming nonsense about me. the subject is nothing to do with personality of any individual. it's about science. i'm assertive and that is my right as it is yours. grow up a bit mojo i am open to polite discussion, jus cut out the playground stuff if you really want to know how i feel. thanks x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said: You do realise he's just trolling (in the classic sense of the term), dont you? more false accusations bob i have stated and reitterated time and time again why i post in this thread. you are here because your long held faith based beliefs are being openly challenged. it's a massive subject that you cannot enter scientifically, as you already have a pre determined bias. it's ok mate, we've all been there, you will be fine. but don't try and pass off your own insecurities off as something to do with my content. you can't project your fears into my personal statements of truth. that's not how life works bob. you are not qualified to talk for me, nor do you have my permission. so you stick to speaking for yourself and i will handle my own posts. thanks. shite patter when all you can do is lie about someone bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: im not mojo you are misinterpreting my post and intent. i know what you asked and you got the reply you needed. please don't bore me with your pretense that you are somehow a reformed character! i have read every post in this thread at least 3 times if not more. do you forget your lack of manners in our previous posts to each other? i am not obliged to answer naive loaded questions. thought you had cottoned on by now. i have nothing to be aggressive about. this is a scientific discussion so stop assuming nonsense about me. the subject is nothing to do with personality of any individual. it's about science. i'm assertive and that is my right as it is yours. grow up a bit mojo i am open to polite discussion, jus cut out the playground stuff if you really want to know how i feel. thanks x I'm trying to be polite, not really sure how anyone could take offence at a simple, inoffensive, non-loaded question. No playground stuff, I'm simply interested in what your take on the article is, we can all post links and not say anything but it would be unfair to make assumptions on other's opinions on those articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Science wins because it works. Astonavigation, astronomy, etc etc conclusively show the Earth is basically a sphere. To pretend there’s anything to debate about this is just ignorance. It is sociologically interesting how such a large section of Western society can be so ignorant of the history and application of science as to claim the world is flat. The personality necessary to so delude themselves that they are investigating a mystery or uncovering a conspiracy is basically childish. PGW has been given multiple methods to understand the shape of the world but he does not do them and seems to say they do not pass his definition of “natural science”. I wonder if he even understands the term conscillience of evidence? PGW, there is a discussion to be had why people doubt the scientific fact that the Earth is spherical, but no point claiming it isn’t. It’s shape has been proven via multiple lines of evidence over hundreds of years. People may reject that evidence but if that is to have any scientific result it has to provide a better predictive model of the Earth’s shape. No flat earther has done that nor ever will because their model of the Earth has been conclusively shown not to work. I can use a spherical model of the earth to predict where a star is in the sky, when the sun will rise and where I am in the sky. A flat earther cannot. That is a fact PGW seems to be unwilling to acknowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: earthy Just sitting down to a smokey bacon bap and a cup of hot, sweet Laspsang Souchong Eagle tea. Might have a snifter of Caol Ila for afters. That's earthy enough for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.