[Tom Bishop]

YouTube comment sections seem to be the standard "debate" medium, but it's not really well-designed for threaded discussions.

It also has the disadvantage that if the FEer disagrees with your comment, they're very likely to either delete it or block you.

Others have taken to making all their videos "Comments disabled for this video" ....

I'm only here as an act of service and education for this society. Why would the authors of those works want to spend all of their time talking to you about the same things day after day, speaking to one noob after another, rehashing the same discussions over and over, when they could be doing something more productive with their lives, or for the cause?

[Bobby Shafto]

^For the same reason Samuel Rowbotham articulates in the preface to the 2nd edition of Earth Not a Globe.

[edby]

I'm only here as an act of service and education for this society. Why would the authors of those works want to spend all of their time talking to you about the same things day after day, speaking to one noob after another, rehashing the same discussions over and over, when they could be doing something more productive with their lives, or for the cause?

Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system? I am an educated person with published work, and I could help a lot with your cause, if only you were able to persuade me. You haven't, so far, but happy to listen.

[Pete Svarrior]

Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system?

No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.

[Tumeni]

Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system?

No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.

... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum. Why say this if you are so disinterested in conversing with those who come here?

[Tom Bishop]

Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system?

No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.

... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum. Why say this if you are so disinterested in conversing with those who come here?

You are welcome to come to this forum and converse about the subject. No one is stopping you. If you feel that there are a lack of FE rebuttals in a conversation, then that is an invitation to you to fill in the gap. The conversation will help fill in existing gaps of knowledge, if any. Haven't you ever heard of a debate club?

Per your demands from the few of the old core FE'ers; we are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us.

[Bobby Shafto]

No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.

Per your demands from the few of the old core FE'ers; we are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us.

These posts explain much about the minimal engagement by FE advocates in this community discussion board. Thank you both for these candid responses.

[Pete Svarrior]

... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum.

I have no issue with conversations - but if you come here aggressively demanding that I cater to your whims or sensibilities without you doing any of the initial groundwork, I'll be thoroughly disinterested.

You mistake an invitation to engage with us for a promise that we'll engage you on any and all terms you can imagine.

Ultimately, we have to make tough decisions about how to manage our time and communications. For example, if I responded to every Twitter DM that demands an answer to something that's already been amply discussed and archived, I'd have to sacrifice all of the time that's currently allocated to sleep - and I do like to sleep in. Sometimes, I respond with nothing but a link to the relevant page - at which point I get lambasted for not writing out each response in my own, unique words.

I purport that, for the average outraged RE'er, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response. And since I'm convinced this is the case, I naturally shift my efforts towards something more productive. This means less bothering with chumps who set their sigs to out-of-context quotes in the hopes of "one-upping" someone, and more attempts at securing widespread coverage, improving the technical backbone of this community, or even just taking a step back and relaxing. Gotta keep your priorities in check, you know?

[inquisitive]

... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum.

I have no issue with conversations - but if you come here aggressively demanding that I cater to your whims or sensibilities without you doing any of the initial groundwork, I'll be thoroughly disinterested.

You mistake an invitation to engage with us for a promise that we'll engage you on any and all terms you can imagine.

Ultimately, we have to make tough decisions about how to manage our time and communications. For example, if I responded to every Twitter DM that demands an answer to something that's already been amply discussed and archived, I'd have to sacrifice all of the time that's currently allocated to sleep - and I do like to sleep in. Sometimes, I respond with nothing but a link to the relevant page - at which point I get lambasted for not writing out each response in my own, unique words.

I purport that, for the average outraged RE'er, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response. And since I'm convinced this is the case, I naturally shift my efforts towards something more productive. This means less bothering with chumps who set their sigs to out-of-context quotes in the hopes of "one-upping" someone, and more attempts at securing widespread coverage, improving the technical backbone of this community, or even just taking a step back and relaxing. Gotta keep your priorities in check, you know?

You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.

[Pete Svarrior]

You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.

It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.

[Tumeni]

... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum.

I have no issue with conversations - but if you come here aggressively demanding that I cater to your whims or sensibilities without you doing any of the initial groundwork, I'll be thoroughly disinterested.

You mistake an invitation to engage with us for a promise that we'll engage you on any and all terms you can imagine.

All the 'terms' seem to come from your side; such as the moderator who takes REers to task for 'low-content posting in the upper fora', etc.

I see no REers dictating any terms other than inviting FEers to provide some empirical evidence from their side


... Sometimes, I respond with nothing but a link to the relevant page - at which point I get lambasted for not writing out each response in my own, unique words.

Well, if a REer posts (for instance) a YouTube video without any accompanying commentary, they get taken to task by the moderator for not stating the salient point of the video. So REers are providing some commentary as a result.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

I purport that, for the average outraged RE'er, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response. ...

Just a response would do.

Have you seen the number of threads where REers put forward a proposal, proposition, assertion, to nil response from any FEer? Or the threads where there are six or more pages of RE input, with the occasional post from Tom B, but absolutely nothing from any other FEer?

[Tumeni]

You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.

It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing ....

Evidently someone, somewhere doesn't hold the same view, or else there would not be this 'debate' forum.

If there's truly no need for further discussion from your side, and you want to put up a sign "We're right. That's it", then what purpose this forum?

[inquisitive]

You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.

It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.

You will have tell us where because a map is key to any proposal.

[AATW]

You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.

It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.

Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?

[Pete Svarrior]

All the 'terms' seem to come from your side; such as the moderator who takes REers to task for 'low-content posting in the upper fora', etc.

I see no REers dictating any terms other than inviting FEers to provide some empirical evidence from their side

And what happens when we reject your "invitation"? Outrage, righteous indignation.

How- how very dare they?! It must mean there's not that many of them. No, no, they're just afraid. Yes, that must be it. After all, nobody would pass up on an opportunity to have such a thrilling conversation! They must just not exist.

Your idea of "inviting" someone to do something is very unorthodox. Excuse me if I don't pay too much heed to it.

Well, if a REer posts (for instance) a YouTube video without any accompanying commentary, they get taken to task by the moderator for not stating the salient point of the video. So REers are providing some commentary as a result.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

Again with the false equivalencies. Can you really not appreciate that we're having a candid conversation? Asking people (on both sides) not to start threads that consist of nothing but a YouTube link is very different from posting a link to an answered question in response to an identical question.

Just a response would do.

Actually, you're proving this wrong as we speak - I gave you a response, and you're already rambling about it. I provided an explanation for why FE'ers behave the way they do, but no - it must be contested. After all, how would I possibly know the reasons behind my own conscious decisions? Perhaps if you nitpick it just a little bit, the truth will unfold!

Have you seen the number of threads where REers put forward a proposal, proposition, assertion, to nil response from any FEer? Or the threads where there are six or more pages of RE input, with the occasional post from Tom B, but absolutely nothing from any other FEer?

No - I tend to leave them a few posts in, after realising that it's another one of those threads - righteous RE'ers thinking they're making a difference by raising trifling points and having a circle-jerk about how they all think they're right. That's not a worthwhile debate, we have better things to do with our time.

As an aside, please learn to quote correctly - your use of coloured fonts makes for an extremely poor experience from an accessibility standpoint. If you don't know how to use BBCode, don't use BBCode.

Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?

Knowledge takes time to propagate; and given how rapidly the FE movement is growing, we're doing quite well. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your concern trolling. It's always entertaining.

[AATW]

Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?

Knowledge takes time to propagate; and given how rapidly the FE movement is growing, we're doing quite well. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your concern trolling. It's always entertaining.

You say that. Einstein's theories superseded hundreds of years of Newtonian mechanics and fairly quickly revolutionised our understanding of lots of things.
They became adopted because they work. They explain observations, they make predictions which have been confirmed by experimentation.
GPS wouldn't work if they didn't take into account relativistic time dilation effects, for example.

Rowbotham was writing long before Einstein and his ideas have not caught on because they are, to use a technical term, complete horseshit.
You claiming they are proven carries no weight when practically no-one agrees with you.

It is quite endearing that you think your ideas are catching on. The internet has allowed crazies to talk to one another far more efficiently but this is never going to be a mainstream thing. A couple of hundred people in a Jury's Inn in Birmingham where one of the speakers was an NHS Manager does not have the markings of a movement which is sweeping the...disc.

[Curious Squirrel]

Any chance we could nudge this back a bit towards the original topic, rather than where we've gotten? With Pete and Tom both about I would love to have their input on if I've gotten things correct on the listed differences, and ideally if they might have either more, or a different take on just where things stand on what's come up. Obviously they've both found some form of experiment or similar that they have been able to do that produces a result consistent only with a Flat Earth 100% of the time. I'm curious just what that might be.