I don't feel Pete is name calling but I do feel he is being disingenuous.
Let's say we have a discussion about the properties of "bodies of water" and I claim that all bodies of water over a certain mass have a certain property and say why they have that property. Someone says "what about this puddle?" and then, when I say "that isn't above a certain mass" the person pretends I've added mass as a new requirement, even though I mentioned that right from the start.
Then the person says "well, what about this cloud?"
I think pretty much everyone would understand if I talk about "bodies of water" I mean oceans and lakes, not clouds or puddles.
So if the person is claiming it's me "redefining terms over and over" then at best they're being intellectually dishonest, more likely they're just trolling.
So, just for clarity, I'm using the term - and have consistently been doing so - to mean stars, planets and moons (above a certain mass). These two links back up that use of the term:
https://www.universetoday.com/48671/celestial-body/https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/celestial-bodyTo be fair, this one does also mention nebulae:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celestial%20body But I think most people would understand the word "body" in the way I'm using it. In the same way that if I ask for a fruit salad I think most people would know that I don't mean a bowl of chopped tomatoes and the explanation that "tomatoes are a fruit".
Semantics are important because if you want to have an honest discussion you need to agree what terms mean. If I'm talking about "large bodies of water" and someone starts talking about puddles or clouds then they are not being honest. If I'm talking about "celestial bodies above a certain mass" and someone mentions small rocks then they're being dishonest. If they mention nebulae then at best they're playing semantic games and wilfully misunderstanding what I mean. My point remains what I originally said:
It’s not just that the earth and all the other celestial bodies above a certain mass we observe are spherical, or roughly so.
Gravity explains why that is so and we understand the oblateness caused by the earth’s spin.
I have now defined what I mean by celestial body unless that was unclear. Physics doesn't predict that small bodies will form into a spherical shape under the force of gravity. Nebulae are where stars are born so yes, parts of nebulae will coalesce into spherical bodies but that happens over deep time.
The original question was "Why do you think earth alone is flat?". The only honest FE answer to that is that they don't know. It just is. This is where RE wins, it explains why earth is an oblate spheroid. It explains why every other star, planet and moon (above a certain mass) is too. If we were discover a flat earth-size planet then it would completely change our understanding of physics, our current understanding of it says we won't.