[TomFoolery]

I got my first warning today for "posting patterns" and it looks like all of my threads were moved to CN.

I'm trying to understand why.

I was essentially accused of "pretending to support the FE cause while actively undermining it,"  and of sometimes clever satire.

I was also advised to abide by the forum rules, but no particular rule was mentioned.

(I thought I was abiding by the forum rules.)

I was also cautioned that if I wished to defend the RE side I had to do it openly and sincerely.

Is FE or RE more important than the truth? I'm seeking after the truth. If I have a problem with an RE claim, it's because of an observation that raises a problem.
If I have a problem with an FE claim, it's because of an observation that raises a problem.

Why do I have to take the RE stance just to raise a concern with FE? Do glober's have to take a FE stance to raise an issue with RE?

Do all the long time flat earthers already know there's problems and have a pact to not say anything about them, and since I dared raise valid issues that I must be a glober pretending to be a flatter?

I'm particularly puzzled about the assertion in the warning that I have to take the RE position to question any aspect of FE, because even the "Read me first" header post for the upper fora says:

The top level Flat Earth Discussion Forums are a Debate Club. As in any debate club, the goal is to exercise your ability in debate to poke holes in arguments and expose weaknesses, even if you do not believe in that position yourself.
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10086.0)

(Emph mine)

What? How can they complain about what holes I poke in which theory after saying that? How can they say I'm "Undermining FE while pretending to support it?" when they clearly say "...even if you do not believe that position?"

And another thing that confuses me the stated reason that I was being warned because of posting patterns, when our very own manifesto says to moderators:

You shall apply the same rules equivalently to all members on the forum,
without invoking your personal opinion of a member, their posting history
or any factor other than the rules and their behaviour in the situation
at hand.
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1219.0)

Emph mine.

And yet I was warned for posting patterns...?
And what was the situation at hand for which I was warned?

And then there's the one odd fact that my first warning came after 257 posts, and it came the very day I questioned the Bishop Experiment which is listed in the wiki.

What's going on? If I poked any holes in FE in my search for truth, then the long time flat earth members could readily patch those holes by explaining the error in my thinking. But they didn't.

Welcome to the debate club where if you make too many points which disagree with the mods you get clubbed. I definitely call that a debate club.

I mean look. It's a private website. If the flat earth society wants to restrict the opinions to that of their website operator, that's fine if they are honest about it.
But pretending like it's a debate club and saying it's OK to poke holes in a theory even if you don't believe that position, and saying things like:

The Flat Earth Society holds that there is a difference between believing and knowing. If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it. We must, at the very least, know exactly how conclusions were made about the world, and the strengths and weaknesses behind those deductions. Our society emphasizes the demonstration and explanation of knowledge.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki)

And

Flat Earth Theory, and Zeteticism, is a movement of emperical inquiry. We are empericists.
...
In our movement we value demonstration and are generally dismissive of those who make claims without reference to demonstration or the emperical evidence to back up those claims.

We have higher standards for science than most people.

I really don't see why I would be thus treated for anything  I did.

I believe in emperical inquiry and I have a very high standard for science.

That's why I went to all the trouble to test for gravity. It's not my fault that there was some unexplained weak attraction between my lead weights. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961)

We present ourselves as very honest and willing to deal with any conundrum but then when someone actually raises issues it's "Put him back in his cage:"

Oh, hey, Treep's back. Let's put you back in your containment cage, shall we?

I have no idea what the Treep thing is about. If it's a reference to another  username, I assure you, this is the only account I ever created on this or any other flat earth website.

Look. The globers already know about the difficulties with flat earth. It's time we acknowledged them and begin to work on a solution.

Right now I'm seriously asking myself if I'm the only one here who isn't afraid to follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

All the globers of course already think they know the answers.

But all the flat earthers seem afraid to even ask the questions, like they are worried that the truth won't be what they thought.

Which is really sad because our whole theme in life is that NASA is lying, and covering up.
And how are we any better?

I do regret questioning the Bishop Experiment though, wish I hadn't done that, but hey I didn't know it was off limits.
And why would I know, when everything indicates that we're open for full debate and poking holes is allowed if we see a problem?

And for the record, I'm really truly looking for the truth. Whatever it is. Wherever it leads. If the truth leads to round earth? Fine. If the truth leads to flat earth? Even more fine. A flat earth is so much easier to deal with when it comes to all sorts of things.
I honestly am completely happy with a flat earth if that's where the evidence leads.

But it has to agree with observable reality.


Because like Dr. Bishop, I have a very high standard for science. I know there is a difference between believing and knowing. I believe in knowing. In testing. In observing.


Look. I'm really trying to make sense of this.


I really don't want to believe that the Moderation is doing exactly what they accuse NASA of doing. I refuse to believe it. But please help  me understand what's going on.

Thank you very much.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's very simple. Your trolling is extremely transparent, and multiple members pointed to it. I get it, the "I'm totally a FE'er but GA-HYUK whoopsie I've done it again erf rund haha" comedy routine is absolutely stunning and entirely unprecedented. But it won't have a place in the upper fora. It's disruptive to actual discussion. The only thing I regret is that I haven't responded to reports soon enough and allowed you to mislead some newcomers. I'll own that error.

You seem like a smart enough guy, and you clearly have a passion for defending RET. That's great. Just do sincerely - stating what your position is (or that you don't have one), and explain your reasoning without engaging in underhanded tactics. Oh, and please do so from a single account.

If you can't meet these simple requests, please find somewhere else to troll. There are plenty of forums out there with inactive moderation that will let you roam free for more than a month, and you'll be bound to find it more rewarding.

[ChrisTP]

In the off chance he is actually trolling and is a round earther, his experiments seem well thought out and he's put a lot of time, effort and money into it regardless of his stance. For example his thread about magnets certainly helps FE more than round as he made a magnet that conformed to and matched how compasses can work on a flat earth.

If he has one account (no matching ip or email addresses) I think there is a chance Tom is just a little goofy about being a flat earther. Possibly tongue in cheek, but his efforts to experiment should be noted IMO, rather than treated as CN.

Of course you're free to do what ever and I'm known to be a little naive so maybe he is trolling.

[Dr David Thork]

No one minds round earthers testing their metal and putting forward flat earth arguments on this forum. It is far harder to argue earth is flat after all, when the majority of internet sources aren't on your side. We actively encourage everyone to explore flat earth topics.

But if you are going to do that ... do it well. Make sure the person on the other side of the debate is going to get something out of that. Otherwise it is just shit posting. Think of it as playing the game on 'god-level'.

[Pete Svarrior]

his efforts to experiment should be noted IMO, rather than treated as CN

Yes, that was essentially my suggestion to him as well. Rather than intertwine experiments and arguments (for one or both sides) with blatant trolling, he should drop the "oooh I'm totally a FE'er but gawrsh darn it the Earth just keeps looking round to me" charade and debate with his cards open. It's only courteous to everyone else here.

[TomFoolery]

It's very simple. Your trolling is extremely transparent,

Please give a single example of where I was trolling.
Or is trolling saying anything that doesn't support FE, even if it's a valid concern?

and multiple members pointed to it.

Just because somebody is uncomfortable with a difficult question doesn't mean I'm a troll for bringing it up.
Unless most flat earthers actually believe FE is a fraud and are afraid of the truth.

I get it, the "I'm totally a FE'er but GA-HYUK whoopsie I've done it again erf rund haha" comedy routine is absolutely stunning and entirely unprecedented.

Please show me how you know I'm any less of a flat earther than anybody else here. The fact that I'm honest about some difficult issues shouldn't be grounds to say I'm not a flat earther.
Unless, of course,  all experienced flat earther's know it's a fraud.
Hey. We always tell people that flat earth makes a lot more sense, and that if we can't demonstrate it we shouldn't believe it!

But it won't have a place in the upper fora.

What rule did I break?
You can't be honest if you're going to just say it can't be in the upper fora because you disagree with it or wish the difficult issues didn't exist.
Especially when the rules clearly state that it's a debate club and we're expected to use our debate skills to poke holes in theories, even if we don't agree with the stance we're taking at that moment!

It's disruptive to actual discussion.

What? That is complete and total nonsense! I was not being disruptive! People were discussing things and more or less even on topic in my threads. My contributions were also by and large on topic and helpful to the point.
In what way was I being disruptive?
Disruptive to what? The only way true statements about flat earth could be "disruptive" is if you're talking about it being disruptive to the effort to deceive people into thinking that flat earth doesn't have any serious unresolved difficulties.

The only thing I regret is that I haven't responded to reports soon enough and allowed you to mislead some newcomers. I'll own that error.

Now that's not nice to accuse me of misleading anybody without providing a link!
Please show me where I mislead some newcomers!

You seem like a smart enough guy, and you clearly have a passion for defending RET.

Is FET your religion where you just defend it even in areas where you know it's got problems?
I have a passion for defending the truth! That's why I spent enormous time and effort defending the fact that a radial magnetic field was entirely possible on a flat earth!
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13338.msg183448#msg183448)

Why can't I defend the truth, and when it supports FET great I defend it, but why can I not also search for answers to the tough questions that appear to be impossible situations for FET?

Especially when our rules are so clear that it is a debate club and that we are supposed to use our debate skills to poke holes in theories even if we are representing a position we don't actually believe in!

That's great. Just do sincerely - stating what your position is (or that you don't have one),

What? Where in the rules does it say that I need to state a position or state that I don't have one? And besides, I'm pretty sure I stated my position -- that I was seeking the truth, whatever it is -- several times.
Again, are you just making stuff up? I didn't see anything in the rules about stating a position.
How does not stating a position diminish validity of the questions I raised? They are valid serious questions no matter who raises them from what position.

and explain your reasoning without engaging in underhanded tactics.

What? Underhanded tactics? I don't recall using any underhanded tactics! Could you please show me the evidence? Did some glober complain to you and you didn't even check to see what I did?
That's an awful thing to accuse someone without even showing them the evidence!

Oh, and please do so from a single account.

I have only ever created a single account on this website.
When I first tried to sign up, I tried to use a different email address I had for a long time, and it was blocking the confirmation link email as spam, so I never confirmed that one. Then I used this email address and it worked.
The other account was never activated because I never got the activation confirmation email.
This is the only account I've ever successfully created here and it's the only account I've ever posted from, and you're just making it up.

Why would you even lie about me having multiple accounts? It's entirely within your power to know with absolute certainty that you have no evidence of me using multiple accounts.

But "TomFoolery" is the *only* username I have ever ever posted on here. You're bluffing.

If you can't meet these simple requests, please find somewhere else to troll. There are plenty of forums out there with inactive moderation that will let you roam free for more than a month, and you'll be bound to find it more rewarding.

Meet these simple requests, you say?
You want me to state a position -- I did long ago, I'm seeking the truth whatever it is.
Obey the forum rules? I thought I was! Nobody has pointed out where I wasn't.
Being on topic? I try really hard, and do about as good as anybody here does in that regard.
No underhanded tactics? I am not away of using any.
Single account? That's all I've ever posted from. Seriously.

What makes this all so absurd is you're telling me that I'm not following the rules (or your unwritten personal rules), but you haven't pointed out a single instance where I've violated either kind of rules.
How am I supposed to do differently if I don't know what rule I broke or what I said that broke it?

I want an appeal.
I'm clearly being railroaded because I had the integrity to raise valid questions.
You've accused me of all sorts of things with not a single evidence. That's shameful!

If what I did is against some unwritten rules then for Pete's sake  write the rules down so we all know what rules to go by, let me read them so I can follow them.

But it's totally absurd to have unwritten rules and CN-can all my threads without prior warning when I didn't even violate any rules, just because you are not comfortable with the fact that there are difficulties with FET just like there are difficulties with any set of ideas.

It's only honest of you to show me what crimes I did instead of just making vague references.

I request an appeal. Or an official change in rules that actually outlaws the raising of difficult questions for FE.

As it stands, it's a debate club. We're supposed to use our debate skills to poke holes in theories even if we don't really associate with the side we're taking.
Which makes it utterly absurd to say I somehow transgressed by not stating a position or a non-position -- especially when I did state a position of seeking the truth, whatever it is!

You're just upset because I proved what appears to be gravity, and because I dare ask tough question -- all the same ones that globers already know about and laugh at us for.

It's only by embracing the truth and dealing with the difficult questions that we will arrive at a better position.

Unless all the experienced flat earthers don't have the faith in our own society to believe it's true.

[TomFoolery]

No one minds round earthers testing their metal and putting forward flat earth arguments on this forum. It is far harder to argue earth is flat after all, when the majority of internet sources aren't on your side. We actively encourage everyone to explore flat earth topics.

But if you are going to do that ... do it well. Make sure the person on the other side of the debate is going to get something out of that. Otherwise it is just shit posting. Think of it as playing the game on 'god-level'.

Hey how good to finally talk with you!
So funny, after numerous interaction on flat earth topics, I hardly seen a post from you. But then when I get CN-Canned, ha! there you are siding with mod! Is that like your job? Did you even read any of my posts?
Why don't some people who interacted with me who were offended come here and side with the mod if I'm such an offensive person?

But seriously, if you have anything against anything I ever said, for Pete's sake (or for your own sake, I don't care) tell me what it is, instead of this generalized nearly boilerplate "The mod is right" post you so carefully crafted just for me!

I believe that everybody in all the debates I was in got a lot out of most of what I said. They obviously didn't always agree but it was still a valid challenge the topic at  hand.


But I mean I guess you have a life too and you helped your friend Pete out to come here and post in his support so thanks for that.

[TomFoolery]

his efforts to experiment should be noted IMO, rather than treated as CN

Yes, that was essentially my suggestion to him as well. Rather than intertwine experiments and arguments (for one or both sides)

What's wrong with intertwining experiments and arguments? The whole point we do experiments is to form a basis of our arguments! That's why the Wiki says that there's a difference between knowing and believing and that we should only believe it if we can demonstrate it!
This is getting really absurd. Why can't I intertwine experiments with arguments? Everybody that experiments does it.

with blatant trolling, he should drop the "oooh I'm totally a FE'er but gawrsh darn it the Earth just keeps looking round to me" charade

I wasn't trolling, blatant or otherwise. I realize you're not used to a genuine truth seeker, but I'm one. I realize most people on either side stick to it flaws and all and defend it to the death.
To me, I defend the truth, and question things that don't make sense. You're all here saying that the truth is that the earth is flat, and if you really believe that, then what's the problem?

and debate with his cards open. It's only courteous to everyone else here.

Debate with my cards open?! What are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about debate club do you.
Seriously! If you were in a debate would you start your opening statement by say "Well, here's the strong points of my position, and here's all the weak points of my position, and here's my responses to some of your likely objections...?"
Of course not! In a debate you *do not* debate with your cards open. You start with the best evidences you got, and you hope your opponent doesn't know about the flaws in your arguments. If they want to raise an issue with your stance, you make them do it, you let them finish, and hope they make a blunder you can pick apart.

The long time flat earth members here do exactly that! They sure don't debate with their cards open. That's why they wouldn't respond to my serious questions.
They jump all over with "Proof is everywhere, flat earth is easiest to believe" when a new person comes along, but when it comes right down to it, they won't engage difficult questions.
They don't want to show their cards. They don't want anyone to realize that there are some issues they haven't solved yet.
But seriously, if you knew anything about debate club, you'd know that nobody debates with their cards open if their single goal is to win the debate right or wrong.

I'm the only one here that *is* debating with my cards open! If the evidence supports a claim, I argue for it.  If the evidence debunks a claim, I argue against it.

For me, it's not about winning a particular side, it's about finding the truth. Whatever it is. And that should be your goal too.

After all, Flat earth has the truth. NASA is lies. Why do we have to be doing our own coverups?

[Pete Svarrior]

It doesn't look like you're interested in adjusting. It's a shame, really.

Oh well, you know your options. I'm sure you'll make the right decision for yourself.

[AATW]

Please give a single example of where I was trolling.

Ooh, can I play?
Come on, dude:

I can't figure out how you faked that. The bottles are so big that the surface tension, while visible around the edge, is easily ruled out.
The water in the bottles obviously are level with eachother, and parallel with the horizon.
If you'd pinched off the tube between the bottles to lock a level then raise one up, it would have shown because the water in the two bottles wouldn't be level compared to each other. Same if you'd put salt in one bottle, while it would make one higher, it wouldn't tip the water in them.

How did you fake that?

I'm going to have to try that one when the weather warms up and the snow clears from some of the roads. I'll figure out what you did there one way or another 

From this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13332.60
That whole post is "Oh, you pesky round earthers, you got it right again and made us look like right chumps. We'll catch you out next time!"

[Dr David Thork]

Hey how good to finally talk with you!

Yes, you got lucky today.

So funny, after numerous interaction on flat earth topics, I hardly seen a post from you.

I've been on this site (and previously its sister site) for the better part of a decade. I've had every flat earth conversation you can imagine at least 20 times over. If you add up all the accounts I have had over the years I think I have 30,000-40,000 posts. If you make a topic where I don't know the inevitable end of discussion, I'll join in. But I've been told by several doctors that if I debate ships going over the horizon one more time, they might not be able to wake me from the ensuing coma next time.

But then when I get CN-Canned, ha! there you are siding with mod! Is that like your job? Did you even read any of my posts?

No. I don't need to. You are assuming that what you write is so special, so unique, that no one can possibly of had those thoughts before and written them on our forum. You are wrong about that.

Why don't some people who interacted with me who were offended come here and side with the mod if I'm such an offensive person?

If you knew anything about this site, you would know that I wouldn't piss on Pete if he was on fire. He irreparably damaged our friendship some time ago and then was a complete dick about it ever since.

But seriously, if you have anything against anything I ever said, for Pete's sake (or for your own sake, I don't care) tell me what it is, instead of this generalized nearly boilerplate "The mod is right" post you so carefully crafted just for me!

Gonna be hard not to give you a boiler plate answer, when your posts are so boiler plate.

I believe that everybody in all the debates I was in got a lot out of most of what I said. They obviously didn't always agree but it was still a valid challenge the topic at  hand.

If that was the case, you wouldn't have got a warning.

But I mean I guess you have a life too and you helped your friend Pete out to come here and post in his support so thanks for that.

I posted out of "I've seen this before" and this is the answer. You are welcome.

[TomFoolery]

Please give a single example of where I was trolling.

Ooh, can I play?
Come on, dude:

I can't figure out how you faked that. The bottles are so big that the surface tension, while visible around the edge, is easily ruled out.
The water in the bottles obviously are level with eachother, and parallel with the horizon.
If you'd pinched off the tube between the bottles to lock a level then raise one up, it would have shown because the water in the two bottles wouldn't be level compared to each other. Same if you'd put salt in one bottle, while it would make one higher, it wouldn't tip the water in them.

How did you fake that?

I'm going to have to try that one when the weather warms up and the snow clears from some of the roads. I'll figure out what you did there one way or another 

From this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13332.60
That whole post is "Oh, you pesky round earthers, you got it right again and made us look like right chumps. We'll catch you out next time!"

Seriously? No other flat earther here is expected to believe that the photo in question is real. They believe the horizon rises to the obsever's eyelevel. Do you know how many times I've seen it?
And our very own wiki states that we should not believe something we cannot demonstrate!
When I do the test for myself, then I'll know. Until then, the flat earth stance is that it cannot be correct.

We have a higher standard of science. Right?

Do you really believe that a flat earther is going to accept that the horizon drops significantly with observer elevation?
Well why would me being skeptical -- honestly openly skeptical -- label me as a troll?
Unless you think that it's not possible for a flat earther to be open and honest, but that's your problem, not mine. It doesn't make me a troll.

[JRowe]

Well this is pathetic.
Honestly in the couple of threads I engaged with you in, at least on the areas we discussed, I never got the impression you were pretending to be a FEer. You were a straight-up REer, albeit one that was generally capable, unlike most, of actually responding to arguments. I did wonder why those threads got moved, but if this is seriously how you're acting who can blame them?
You did a terrible job of pretending to be a FEer, to the point I just straight-up didn't notice, which is the definition of mockery. If you stuck to actually engaging in discussion rather than the failed pretense I doubt anyone would have had the problem, but instead of doing that you decided to do this? Posting a literal essay in S&C is grandstanding, it's "Look at me, I'm so special and smart," more than it is raising a concern. I imagine it'd have been easier to take your side for people if you hadn't opted for the temper tantrum approach.

Congrats. Rather than decide to actually engage in debate you've done what pretty much every other REer there does and replace any and all logic with mockery and cowardice, posture and preen for readers over contributing to knowledge. Good riddance. I thought you were better than that.

[Pete Svarrior]

Unless you think that it's not possible for a flat earther to be open and honest, but that's your problem, not mine.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Look, this is simple. You're going to stop cooltrolling the upper one way or another. If you want to keep up your comedy routine in CN/AR, you're welcome to.

[TomFoolery]

Do I get an appeal?

[TomFoolery]

You are assuming that what you write is so special, so unique, that no one can possibly of had those thoughts before and written them on our forum. You are wrong about that.

Wonderful, well I sure wish you'd been so kind as to answer my question about how come it's dark in Alaska and light in Australia during a time that the sun is closer to Alaska.
Or explained to me what that strange attraction between my lead weights was.

If you knew anything about this site, you would know that I wouldn't piss on Pete if he was on fire. He irreparably damaged our friendship some time ago and then was a complete dick about it ever since.

I'm picking up on that. But isn't that a problem with out claimed open-honest pursuit of truth?
Is there no justice here? You upset the mod and then you're cooked, because how did you describe the mod? You make my point better than I could.
If he treats his friends that way, how in the world is he going to be objective with a stranger who brings up valid concerns for FE?

I believe that everybody in all the debates I was in got a lot out of most of what I said. They obviously didn't always agree but it was still a valid challenge the topic at  hand.

If that was the case, you wouldn't have got a warning.

I don't see the logic there. so far not one soul has told me what my crime was for the warning. Just a bunch of vague things that don't seem to relate to the rules.
I cannot ignore the fact that the mod who has it in for me does not appreciate me raising valid concerns.
But he's ignoring the manifesto, the rules, and the "debate club" statement!

[juner]

Do I get an appeal?

Typically there isn't much of an appeal to be had with a first warning. You get quite a few before anything actually happens. I have reviewed the thread since Pete is the one who issued the warning, and I support him and the general opinion shared by other users in this thread. I'd suggest taking the advice that has been given to you if you want to continue to participate in the upper fora.

You are welcome to wait for Parsifal, the forum Administrator, to review when he gets a chance. But I doubt he is going invest much time in a protest over a single warning.

[TomFoolery]

Congrats. Rather than decide to actually engage in debate you've done what pretty much every other REer there does and replace any and all logic with mockery and cowardice, posture and preen for readers over contributing to knowledge. Good riddance. I thought you were better than that.

Are you saying I didn't engage in debate? Course I did. Or discussion, but I definitely engaged the topic.
I notice that you didn't show a single example of how I replaced logic with mockery and cowardice.
Cowardice? Now if you want an example of that, it's just start banning people who make convincing arguments that you are not comfortable with.

[Pete Svarrior]

Right, I'm going to have to ask you to also stop doing this in S&C. You've "made" your "case", and unless Parsifal decides in your favour, the matter is largely settled. Attacking others and virtue signalling is only going to harm your argumentation.

[TomFoolery]

Sorry Pete, I composed this before I got your request to stop. But junker did respond to me and I'm hoping your gracious goodness will permit my response to him.

Do I get an appeal?

Typically there isn't much of an appeal to be had with a first warning. You get quite a few before anything actually happens. I have reviewed the thread since Pete is the one who issued the warning, and I support him and the general opinion shared by other users in this thread. I'd suggest taking the advice that has been given to you if you want to continue to participate in the upper fora.

You are welcome to wait for Parsifal, the forum Administrator, to review when he gets a chance. But I doubt he is going invest much time in a protest over a single warning.

I just can't understand why nobody will show me what rules I violated. All those subscribing to flat earth seem to agree that I transgressed but can't point out a single rule that I broke.

Do you also agree with the general opinion of all the globers who appreciated my efforts to experiment and raise valid questions?

Anyway, thank you all for your time. I am learning more about the flat earth community than I ever thought, how they work, what they do, what they believe, and what they say they believe. It's not what I expected.
They threw a second warning at me too, here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?msg=185373

Or do warnings for different rules not add up?

And it's not just the warning I want to appeal, it is the act of moving a bunch of threads to CN without prior warning even though they were popular active threads discussing the core issues of flat earth.

Having said that, if granted the opportunity, I'll wait for possible response from Parsifal here.

Thanks!