*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Is it time for a new FAQ?
« on: March 20, 2023, 02:48:06 AM »
So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.
Yes, it's still an issue, because you still don't have the first idea about FE, but you have the audacity to push beliefs onto others.

There seems to be an ongoing problem around here: RE'ers aren't quite sure what FE'ers believe.  Even when RE'ers are referred to the WIKI, Pete has sagely pointed out that the the WIKI has a good deal of historical material that may or may not still be relevant to modern FET.  There is also the problem that relatively little of the discussion in the FE discussion boards is actually about FET, and even so, different FE'ers may have different (and often conflicting) ideas.  Is it any wonder that even long time posters "still don't have the first idea about FE"?

To help alleviate this problem, perhaps it's time for a new FAQ that focuses on presenting a concise outline of what RE'ers need to know in order to be able to have a (relatively) productive discussion about contemporary FET.  I would recommend that it be clearly pointed out which topics have reached a consensus among FE'ers and which are still being contested, along with links to relevant WIKI articles.
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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16061
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is it time for a new FAQ?
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2023, 11:19:26 AM »
There seems to be an ongoing problem around here: RE'ers aren't quite sure what FE'ers believe.
This is incorrect. There is a small number of very persistent RE'ers who didn't bother to learn the basics, and who aren't interested in learning - they're just here to explain how right they are, no matter the arguments they need to make to get there. In this case, it's pretty clear that Stack simply searched for the words "eye level" and quote-mined whatever he thought would prove his point. Unfortunately, he didn't bother to find out what he's quoting, or why it's there, so he ended up citing an old book, which we preserved as a historical reference.

The book is clearly named in the page he quoted, and the page discussing the perceived dip in the horizon is in a fairly good state (not perfect, but what ever is?). The only source of Stack's confusion is Stack.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't read, it won't much matter what we write. As such, we will not be taking responsibility for the non-readers. It will be impossible to appease that group, nor should we expend any effort to try. The permanoobs are not, and have never been, the target audience of this place. We will not be changing for you.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2023, 11:22:41 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume