Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #40 on: February 29, 2016, 03:57:44 PM »
Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.
Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.
OK, I'll make is easy on your poor old eyes.
I have not seen anything from you on Flat Earth Theory. All you ever do is question bits of the globe earth ideas that you claim not to understand.
So, what about filling us all in on Flat Earth Theory, and explain how moon phases work. Yes, I've read the Wiki, What I see there simply does not explain how a full moon could ever be seen when it so right overhead.
You have done nothing to "prove the earth is flat", so what about it?

I dont care to prove anything to anyone. Obviously there is some cognitive dissonance involved, with you especially, that id rather stick my head into a behive then try to overcome.

And don't dare say the I'm the one with confirmation bias because I was brought up the same as most being taught the earth is round, tilted on an axis, and revolving the sun. My pointing out the inconsistencies in this model is the only way I can begin to develop any rational concepts otherwise. I'm no astrophysicist but I know bullshit when I smell it.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #41 on: February 29, 2016, 09:06:25 PM »
Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.
Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.
OK, I'll make is easy on your poor old eyes.
I have not seen anything from you on Flat Earth Theory. All you ever do is question bits of the globe earth ideas that you claim not to understand.
So, what about filling us all in on Flat Earth Theory, and explain how moon phases work. Yes, I've read the Wiki, What I see there simply does not explain how a full moon could ever be seen when it so right overhead.
You have done nothing to "prove the earth is flat", so what about it?

I dont care to prove anything to anyone. Obviously there is some cognitive dissonance involved, with you especially, that id rather stick my head into a behive then try to overcome.

And don't dare say the I'm the one with confirmation bias because I was brought up the same as most being taught the earth is round, tilted on an axis, and revolving the sun. My pointing out the inconsistencies in this model is the only way I can begin to develop any rational concepts otherwise. I'm no astrophysicist but I know bullshit when I smell it.
I think your sense of smell has been bent somewhere along the line.
TFES gives us an alternative to the globe that has no way of explaining even how the sun can rise due east, and set due west everywhere on earth on on 20/March/2016 - just you check it out! On the same day everywhere on earth gets 12 hours (+ a couple of minutes) of daylight.
Both North and South Poles also get 24 hour daylight on that day too. There is no way a sun over a flat earth can do that.

You deny the moon landing. Do you deny all satellites and space missions? Hundreds of thousands work in industries dependent of satellites.
Geo-stationary satellites can be photographed stationary against a moving starfield - no, you can't do that you Box Brownie camera, but you can't see atoms, electric fields etc, etc, but you believe in them.

Read up on aligning satellite TV antennae - that on its own is close enough to proof that there are man-made satellites up there.

Along with dozens of other things "little problems". You don't need to be an astrophysicist to check that out!

Yes, that detector of yours needs a refit.

[edit - I said that you can photograph Geo-stationary satellites with your Box Brownie camera!]
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 09:09:44 PM by rabinoz »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2016, 02:46:42 PM »
It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.
Complete and utter nonsense.  It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2016, 05:01:52 PM »
It's trivially easy to fool our senses

This.  Optical illusions have been known for many, many years, and have been created and manipulated for fun by artists and pranksters, and for evil by charlatans.  The human eye-brain system is very effective at providing the information you need to function in the world, but is not very good at providing a perfect rendering of the world.

Here is a page full of things that look like they are X (moving/different color/same size) but are actually Y (static/same color/different size).
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2016, 01:32:02 AM »
It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.
Complete and utter nonsense.  It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.

In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2016, 08:52:40 AM »
It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.
Complete and utter nonsense.  It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.

In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
It does seem interesting that:
any observation which seems to disagree with a flat earth is "utter nonsense".
any photograph which seems to disagree with a flat earth is "faked".
any experiment which seems to disagree with a flat earth is "biased".

I have claimed many observations which lead me to believe the earth is NOT FLAT.  Of course, I get accused of being totally illogical and spouting nonsense, yet
your flat earth makes the most outlandish claims, such as:
Quote
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.
Quote
Why the Lunar Eclipse is Red
A typical lunar eclipse
The Lunar Eclipse is red because the light of the sun is shining through the edges of the Shadow Object which passes between the sun and moon during a Lunar Eclipse. The red tint occurs because the outer layers of the Shadow Object are not sufficiently dense.
Evidence of "Shadow Object" please - who has seen it?
Quote
Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
Evidence or plain guesswork - who has observed it?
And the list of Flat Earth Magic goes on and on - and we get accused of "spouting utter nonsense." - really!

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2016, 01:29:40 PM »
It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.
Complete and utter nonsense.  It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.

In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
So if your senses tell you that stopped cars in neutral really can roll uphill, then it must be true, right?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2016, 03:53:51 PM »
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.

Which of your senses support the various hypothetical statements in the wiki?  A few obvious examples of things derived from FE theory, instead of sensed:
"Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall."  Have any of you been to this wall, seen it, measured it?
Two competing ideas: Either "the Ice Wall is tall enough to hold in the atmolayer, like the edges of a bowl."  Or: "The atmolayer is held in by a complex reaction to the streams of Dark Energy at the edge of the world."
"The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun"  Something that is never seen?  That seems the very definition of "free of what our senses tell us" don't you think?
"When the sun is too far away rays are bent in a parabolic arc before they reach earth"  Have you ever seen light bend in a parabolic arc?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #48 on: March 03, 2016, 05:32:38 AM »
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.

Which of your senses support the various hypothetical statements in the wiki?  A few obvious examples of things derived from FE theory, instead of sensed:
"Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall."  Have any of you been to this wall, seen it, measured it?
Two competing ideas: Either "the Ice Wall is tall enough to hold in the atmolayer, like the edges of a bowl."  Or: "The atmolayer is held in by a complex reaction to the streams of Dark Energy at the edge of the world."
"The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun"  Something that is never seen?  That seems the very definition of "free of what our senses tell us" don't you think?
"When the sun is too far away rays are bent in a parabolic arc before they reach earth"  Have you ever seen light bend in a parabolic arc?
I don't see the problem. All you have to do is see that the earth is flat, then bend (literally in the case of light) all other observations as needed! Needs a bit of magic sometimes.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #49 on: March 03, 2016, 05:53:18 AM »
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
So if your senses tell you that stopped cars in neutral really can roll uphill, then it must be true, right?

[/quote]

Please stop posting, Markjo.  I beg you.  You are kind of making yourself look silly right now.

Surely you recognize that somebody at some time must have observed that cars in neutral can only roll downhill, or some other physically identical variant, otherwise the notion of a car in neutral rolling uphill would not be an absurd concept?

You would almost think that my assertion that knowledge cannot truly be obtained free of empirical observation wasn't a mainstream philosophical view (one that would make science itself irrelevant if it weren't true).  Ooh, I'm a weird fringe Flat Earther, what I say can't possibly make sense!

Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2016, 02:29:36 PM »
Surely you recognize that somebody at some time must have observed that cars in neutral can only roll downhill, or some other physically identical variant, otherwise the notion of a car in neutral rolling uphill would not be an absurd concept?
And yet I provided an example of a car clearly rolling uphill.

You would almost think that my assertion that knowledge cannot truly be obtained free of empirical observation wasn't a mainstream philosophical view (one that would make science itself irrelevant if it weren't true).
It almost sounds like you're suggesting that objective observations can't be empirical.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2016, 12:41:32 AM »
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us.  If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.

Please stop posting, Markjo.  I beg you.  You are kind of making yourself look silly right now.

Surely you recognize that somebody at some time must have observed that cars in neutral can only roll downhill, or some other physically identical variant, otherwise the notion of a car in neutral rolling uphill would not be an absurd concept?

You would almost think that my assertion that knowledge cannot truly be obtained free of empirical observation wasn't a mainstream philosophical view (one that would make science itself irrelevant if it weren't true).  Ooh, I'm a weird fringe Flat Earther, what I say can't possibly make sense!


Yes, but one think on first sight that "The earth looks flat", but then we find that numerous observations are not consistent with that premise!
So, we come to realise that the hypothesis of a flat earth is not consistent with reality, and have to abandon that idea.

In Ptolemy's day they considered the earth the centre of the universe, but he and many others had great difficulty fitting astronomical observations with that hypothesis. Complicated models explaining planetary motion were developed. Of course they were also hampered by their "love" of the "perfect circle".
Well, you know the rest.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2016, 09:50:32 PM »
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?


The basic and obvious is vindicated by the fact that it is the basic and obvious. All opposing theories must attack that to find their place in the world. Whether you believe the earth is concave, convex, or irregular, you must show evidence against the prevailing reality that the earth is flat. A Flat Earth is the prevailing reality upon which all contradictory hypothesis' must engage.

If you are claiming that ghosts exist, you must contradict the prevailing reality that ghosts do not exist. It is not the burden of the people who think that ghosts do not exist to prove that they don't. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do exist.

The people saying that ghosts do not exist don't need to prove a thing. Not a thing.

Rama Set

Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2016, 09:52:03 PM »
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?


The basic and obvious is vindicated by the fact that it is the basic and obvious. All opposing theories must attack that to find their place in the world. Whether you believe the earth is concave, convex, or irregular, you must show evidence against the prevailing reality that the earth is flat. A Flat Earth is the prevailing reality upon which all contradictory hypothesis' must engage.

If you are claiming that ghosts exist, you must contradict the prevailing reality that ghosts do not exist. It is not the burden of the people who think that ghosts do not exist to prove that they don't. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do exist.

The people saying that ghosts do not exist don't need to prove a thing. Not a thing.

Except that your basic and obvious reality was disproved a long time ago and there are many fields which deal with the curvature of the Earth on a daily basis: surveying and float glass manufacturing as two examples.  This is ignoring the obvious elephants in the room of geodesy, satellite/space technology and astronomy, because of the bias you hold towards conspiracies which fly in the face of your views you express above.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2016, 09:58:49 PM »
If you think there is valid evidence, then it is your responsibility to show your evidence for surveying and floating glass and the existence of space ships. The truth starts with the obvious that the earth is flat. The earth is flat until it has been disproven to be so.

Rama Set

Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2016, 10:06:20 PM »
If you think there is evidence, then it is your responsibility to show your evidence for surveying and floating glass and the existence of space ships.

But they have been shown to exist, you just deny it.  I don't have to reiterate that because you like pretend surveyors don't deal with the curvature of the Earth, or that rockets don't go in to space.

Quote
The truth starts with the fact that the earth is flat.

You don't get to decide where the truth starts, sorry.

Quote
The earth is flat until it has been disproven to be so.

So it is not flat, great.  You know it has been disproven; that is why you have had to salvage the idea with things like bendy light, or other notions like people's formalization of perspective being incorrect.  These are responses to valid counterexamples of the Earth's flatness.  This high ground you try to occupy is a place that has not existed for a very long time.





*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2016, 10:36:00 PM »
But they have been shown to exist, you just deny it.  I don't have to reiterate that because you like pretend surveyors don't deal with the curvature of the Earth, or that rockets don't go in to space.

All we typically see on these forums are surveying myths like bridges are wider at the top than their bases; which after dozens of pages of discussion, we typically find the claim to be false or untested.

Quote
So it is not flat, great.  You know it has been disproven; that is why you have had to salvage the idea with things like bendy light, or other notions like people's formalization of perspective being incorrect.  These are responses to valid counterexamples of the Earth's flatness.  This high ground you try to occupy is a place that has not existed for a very long time.

There is nothing wrong with questioning concepts like perspective, since no one actually ever proved it to be correct. It is not incorrect to question the geometric concept of perspective that two infinitely long parallel lines receding away from you into the distance will never touch. No one tested that. There is no prevailing reality to give us an answer on that. It is very much questionable.

Questioning such concepts is the very right and very intelligent thing to do. It would be stupid to simply blindly assume, as you and the other dogmatists do, that the ancients got perspective entirely correct without any real world evidence behind it. That is not what our Zetetic philosophy of empiricism is about, and is antithetical to truth and reason.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2016, 11:48:08 PM »
There is nothing wrong with questioning concepts like perspective...Questioning such concepts is the very right and very intelligent thing to do.

It's not the questioning that is the problem, ask all the questions you want.  The problem is the unreasonable rejection of answers.

FE Question: Why do you RE people think the Earth is round, can't you see it is flat?  Look around you!!
RE Answer: Well, photos from space, for example.
FE Response: Nope, those are fake.  In fact, ALL space flight EVER has been fake.
RE Answer: All right, I suppose I can't 'prove' spaceflight to you.  Eclipses aren't fake though, and they demonstrate the Moon going around the Earth.
FE Response: No, the Moon goes around the north pole, sometimes passing in front of the sun.
RE Answer: If that were true, the phases of the moon would turn sideways sometimes!
FE Response: No they wouldn't
RE Answer: Of course they would, how can you even.....whatever, how about Lunar eclipse, when the Earth is between Sun and Moon?
FE Response: Shadow Object.
RE Answer: Shadow WHAT?!?  Never mind, star trails prove the Earth rotates among the stars.
FE Response: Dome.
RE Answer: What?
FE Response: The stars.  They're on a dome, and that's what rotates, not the Earth.
RE Answer: How....why are the stars in the southern hemisphere going the other direction then?
FE Response: Gears.
RE Answer: Gears?
FE Response: Yes, northern and southern celestial systems.
RE Answer: So which is it then: a dome, or two systems?
FE Response: I don't have to answer your questions.
RE Answer: Seriously?  OK then, why do ships disappear over the horizon hull-first?
FE Response: They don't.
RE Answer: What do you mean, "They don't"?!?  Of course they do, I've seen it happen!!
FE Response: No, you THINK you've seen it.  Get a better telescope, you'll see the whole ship again.
RE Answer: Here's a photo taken with a pretty extreme telephoto lens, proving you wrong.
FE Response: I don't believe photos (except the ones I put up, of course)
RE Answer: Are you kidding me?  All right, all right: shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.
FE Response: Sure they do.  Because the sun is 3000 miles away.
RE Answer: No, it's because the observers are on a curved surface looking at a far away sun.
FE Response: No they aren't.
RE Answer: But if you take observations at different spots, you can calculate very different solar elevations if you do the math FE style, while getting the same number doing it RE style.
FE Response: That's because you Round Earth people think PI = 3.14159
RE Answer: Of course we do, why wouldn't you?
FE Response: Because Pi = 4
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2016, 02:29:56 AM »
shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.

This honestly intrigues me.  Can you provide a picture of the sun's shadow?  Because personally my response to this one would be "The sun doesn't cast a shadow that we are able to observe."
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof
« Reply #59 on: March 06, 2016, 03:12:53 AM »
shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.

This honestly intrigues me.  Can you provide a picture of the sun's shadow?  Because personally my response to this one would be "The sun doesn't cast a shadow that we are able to observe."

Oops, you caught me in a typo, thanks!  Instead of "shadows of the sun" it should read "shadows of vertical objects in sunlight".

In fact, to defend my position against wordsmithing I suppose I should be much more precise: "Suppose multiple observers at multiple locations hundreds of miles apart but still all in daylight conduct simultaneous observations of the shadows cast by vertical objects in sunlight.  Further suppose each observer records the angle of the shadow cast by that object in the sunlight.  Those angles will all be different."

I didn't do it that way originally because I was going for more of a real-time back and forth conversational style.  I could expand each of the statements into a much longer sentence for pinpoint clarity, if that will make the point.

Funny thing about this typo.  I made the same misunderstanding of a very similar piece of text in the TFES wiki.  Now that both RE and FE have demonstrated that the wording is prone to misinterpretation, perhaps somebody should fix it in the wike?  http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg90756#msg90756
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice