[Jura-Glenlivet]

Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."

Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.

[AstronomyMaster]

From what I see after a cursory glance, no. It looks like s/he is building quite the strawman, or using quotes from people that couldn't make a decent argument.

He said he used most of those arguments trying to convince people that the Earth is flat on The Philosophical Vegan Forum, and that they explained to him why they are wrong.

As for those ships reappearing when looked through telescope, FlatEarthDenial proposed a RE explanation for it.

[juner]

Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."

Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.

Hi Jura, normally I would be happy to track down stuff, as you are a rational person. But, as previously mentioned:

I have zero interest left in this particular discussion as it has veered totally from OP's topic.

Maybe next time.

[Rama Set]

Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."

Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.

Hi Jura, normally I would be happy to track down stuff,

This thread obviously being a notable exception.

as you are a rational person.

>Criticizes people for fallacies
>Loves dem Ad Homs

But, as previously mentioned:

I have zero interest left in this particular discussion as it has veered totally from OP's topic.

Maybe next time.

Or, more likely, you probably couldn't even if you have interest.

[juner]

This thread obviously being a notable exception.

Why is it notable? I used the word "normally" as a qualifier, meaning that I don't do it every time depending on certain conditions, concluding that there are exceptions. The exception in this case is that I lost interest from dealing with people who are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty by literally making things up and presenting them as fact. That along with juvenile tactics made me not care to debate FE topics with those responsible for said behaviors.

as you are a rational person.

>Criticizes people for fallacies
>Loves dem Ad Homs

I would probably suggest you go look up what an ad hominem is, as it is blatantly obvious by your misuse of the term here that you simply don't know what it is. I literally called Jura a rational person. That is because he is, and the conversations I have seen from him reflect my opinion. He is typically also very polite and pleasant. I like Jura and would usually engage in conversation with him, but as I previously stated, I am done doing so in this thread as it pertains to FE debate for the reasons (repeatedly) stated.

Or, more likely, you probably couldn't even if you have interest.

Any more baseless conjecture you care to add to this thread? You look more nonsensical with every post you make here. Which is a shame, because you are also usually rational and pleasant. This thread obviously being a notable exception.^TM

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama, lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.

[Rama Set]

This thread obviously being a notable exception.

Why is it notable? I used the word "normally" as a qualifier, meaning that I don't do it every time depending on certain conditions, concluding that there are exceptions. The exception in this case is that I lost interest from dealing with people who are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty by literally making things up and presenting them as fact. That along with juvenile tactics made me not care to debate FE topics with those responsible for said behaviors.

You deflected my requests for information right off the top of the thread.  You can ignore that or lie about it all you want, but it does not change the facts.

as you are a rational person.

>Criticizes people for fallacies
>Loves dem Ad Homs

I would probably suggest you go look up what an ad hominem is, as it is blatantly obvious by your misuse of the term here that you simply don't know what it is. I literally called Jura a rational person. That is because he is, and the conversations I have seen from him reflect my opinion. He is typically also very polite and pleasant. I like Jura and would usually engage in conversation with him, but as I previously stated, I am done doing so in this thread as it pertains to FE debate for the reasons (repeatedly) stated. [/quote]

Your motivations appear to be duplicitous, as you were evasive before anything became heated.

Or, more likely, you probably couldn't even if you have interest.

Any more baseless conjecture you care to add to this thread? You look more nonsensical with every post you make here. Which is a shame, because you are also usually rational and pleasant. This thread obviously being a notable exception.^TM

I do have a very strong basis to suspect this: you repeatedly deflected straightforward requests for information.  You did the same in another thread, immaturely criticizing post formatting.  You claim to have knowledge, but have done nothing to substantiate it.  It's a joke (or a troll).  Claiming I am nonsensical is just another Ad Hom. 

I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama,

I love you guys too.  Nothing Junker says here can ever change this.

lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.

But, but, but... Tom!

[TotesNotReptilian]

Why is it notable? I used the word "normally" as a qualifier, meaning that I don't do it every time depending on certain conditions, concluding that there are exceptions. The exception in this case is that I lost interest from dealing with people who are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty by literally making things up and presenting them as fact. That along with juvenile tactics made me not care to debate FE topics with those responsible for said behaviors.

I normally try to keep the "juvenile tactics" to a minimum, but I really could not think of any other response to the amount of unwarranted self-victimization in that post. It seemed you were determined to call me a liar (among other things) no matter how earnestly I tried to figure out the truth.

How much longer are you going to pout about all these imagined slights, and a single light-hearted post?

I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama, lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.

Can I come too? I've gone a round with Tom and junker now, but I haven't had the pleasure of conversing with the renowned Davis.

[juner]

I was Just fucking about a bit there Junker, I love you too, and you Rama, lets all get together and go and and pick on Davis.

I know you were homie. I am down, but Rama has to apologize and atone first. If he wants to wash my car in a speedo or something that should suffice.

You deflected my requests for information right off the top of the thread. 

Irrelevant.

You can ignore that or lie about it all you want, but it does not change the facts.

I haven't ignored or lied about anything. Oddly enough, what you are saying here literally makes no sense as a response to what you quoted from me. Seems silly, but that's none of my business.

Your motivations appear to be duplicitous, as you were evasive before anything became heated.

I'll take that as an apology.

I do have a very strong basis to suspect this: you repeatedly deflected straightforward requests for information.  You did the same in another thread, immaturely criticizing post formatting. 

I didn't deflect at all. OP in that thread came in and made a series of demands that MUST do x or y, as if he is entitled to a response by anyone. The formatting was just a rib at him as he is notorious for terribly formatted posts and has been asked to not do that.

You claim to have knowledge, but have done nothing to substantiate it.

What knowledge do I claim to have? That I have seen claims made by other people? Is my word that I have seen people make claims (whether those claims are true or false) not enough to support my claim that I have seen people make claims?

Claiming I am nonsensical is just another Ad Hom. 

Using the word "another" implies that there was a previous one. You are trying to spin some kind of narrative here and no one is falling for it. While calling you nonsensical may possibly be an ad hom, your behavior is reflecting the definition of the word, so it fits.

I love you guys too.  Nothing Junker says here can ever change this.

I wouldn't be who I am today without you guys.

But, but, but... Tom!

Davis is fair game but you leave Tom the fuck alone.

Also, maybe a mod could lock this trainwreck at some point. All hope was lost a while ago.

[Rama Set]

I know you were homie. I am down, but Rama has to apologize and atone first. If he wants to wash my car in a speedo or something that should suffice.

An atonement should be something you will enjoy and I will not, not the other way around.

You deflected my requests for information right off the top of the thread. 

Irrelevant.

Not when you claim that we never asked for information in a clear and polite manner.  That is patently false.

I haven't ignored or lied about anything. Oddly enough, what you are saying here literally makes no sense as a response to what you quoted from me. Seems silly, but that's none of my business.

You either ignored that I asked you for information clearly and politely or are lying about it.

Your motivations appear to be duplicitous, as you were evasive before anything became heated.

I'll take that as an apology.

Mmmmk?

I do have a very strong basis to suspect this: you repeatedly deflected straightforward requests for information.  You did the same in another thread, immaturely criticizing post formatting. 

I didn't deflect at all. OP in that thread came in and made a series of demands that MUST do x or y, as if he is entitled to a response by anyone. The formatting was just a rib at him as he is notorious for terribly formatted posts and has been asked to not do that.[/quote]

He did not demand that you do anything.  Stop being so dramatic.  He challenged the FE community using a quote of yours, where you claimed to have knowledge of sources of information, but refuse or cannot reveal them.

You claim to have knowledge, but have done nothing to substantiate it.

What knowledge do I claim to have? That I have seen claims made by other people?

That and that their claims are legitimate.  The second part is the more important part to me.

Is my word that I have seen people make claims (whether those claims are true or false) not enough to support my claim that I have seen people make claims?

I never asked you to substantiate that you have seen claims made by other people, I asked you to substantiate who you have seen.  It was clearly asked, more than once. 

Claiming I am nonsensical is just another Ad Hom. 

Using the word "another" implies that there was a previous one. You are trying to spin some kind of narrative here and no one is falling for it.

Who else isn't falling for it?  Wait, are you spinning a narrative?

While calling you nonsensical may possibly be an ad hom,

It definitely is.

your behavior is reflecting the definition of the word, so it fits.

Uhhh, not really.  Others have found me to make sense, so your assertion is incorrect.

I love you guys too.  Nothing Junker says here can ever change this.

I wouldn't be who I am today without you guys.

But, but, but... Tom!

Davis is fair game but you leave Tom the fuck alone.

Also, maybe a mod could lock this trainwreck at some point. All hope was lost a while ago.
[/quote]

[rabinoz]

Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it. The OP's counter-argument in the linked thread is non-existent beyond "I haven't seen it" and "I didn't like the answers I received about it before."

Hi Junker, just looking back at your posts, I just wondered if you have any links to the experiment you mentioned as I can't seem to find one, cheers.

I started a thread dedicated to Junkers "experiment" and this is his first reply!

There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!

You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp ^{perform the experiment,} _{document all logistics and results,} then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!

He thinks we should do the experiment! But according to him the "experiment" has already been done and

all I am asking is the documentation for it that must undoubtedly exist!

[juner]

I started a thread dedicated to Junkers "experiment" and this is his first reply!

Not sure why you are calling it my experiment. Unless you intentionally didn't use an apostrophe to indicate a possessive and aren't actually referring to me. It isn't my experiment. I haven't done it, nor have I claimed to. It was one of several points that were mentioned as a response to OP.

[rabinoz]

I started a thread dedicated to Junkers "experiment" and this is his first reply!

Not sure why you are calling it my experiment. Unless you intentionally didn't use an apostrophe to indicate a possessive and aren't actually referring to me. It isn't my experiment. I haven't done it, nor have I claimed to. It was one of several points that were mentioned as a response to OP.

I was quite innocently implying "the experiment you claimed had been performed". 
Since you would not mention it without documentation, all I was expecting was some documentation or at least some reference to it.

We know that in TFES

We work from experiment to experience here. We have standards.

So obviously this documentation is available.