Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But you have to admit it seems almost beyond coincidence that the messiah was born so close to the zero year like that.Well, it is beyond coincidence. In the 6th century, Dionysius Exiguus specifically designed his year numbering system to use what he thought to be Jesus's birth year1 as the reference point. Yes, it's not a coincidence that a system that picks a certain date as its reference point has that date as its reference point.
the cost of deporting illegal immigrants who have committed no other crimesAre you effectively advocating for the decriminalisation of illegal immigration?
Where did I suggest that council members would not contribute? I simply said that they would not be the expected workhorses of any project the society decides to start.Okay, I guess that's fair enough. I'm still not clear why that would need to be said explicitly. Is there anyone that's "expected" to be the workhorses?
Right now there is an air of assumption that the society is not going anywhere because the Zetetic Council is not out there making documentaries, engaging the world in public debates, and whatever.I don't think that's quite true. No one expects you to engage in public debates or making documentaries, especially not all by yourself. Reaching out to the media, however, was something we explicitly agreed would be the ZC's job, at least as far as initiating the contact goes. Even the society relaunch press release (a 1-page document, 2 pages at best) has never been completed, despite numerous approaches undertaken. The same goes for the Constitution. Or the terms of how ZC elections would work in the future. Or at least re-electing the 3 ZCs that either resigned or have gone completely inactive. The problem isn't that the ZC isn't making documentaries. The problem is that it does hardly anything at all.
Why should the future of the society be put solely on me?It shouldn't, it isn't, and you know it. Different people within the Society have assumed different roles. Some of them do their jobs, others don't. I don't understand why the ZC should be allowed to accept a job and then add a clause that says they don't actually have to do it.
For the society to move forward we need interest and participation of a large group of people, and tying membership into active participation with society activities is the way to do it.I don't see how or why. You keep saying that this is the case, but you're not backing it up in any way.
You (PP) are making it out that he and the rest do nothing, when we are all sitting around doing nothing and Tom is at least trying to get us to discuss something.I take an issue with you suggesting that I (together with a number of other involved members who would fall under "we all") do nothing. If you'd like to join us in maintaining the site's codebase, social media, the Wiki, the Library, the store, or, you know, anything at all, then please get in touch and get involved. Until then, I'd like to ask that you keep your insults to yourself and let those who actually put something into this effort have a conversation about how to best approach this.
Why should only 5 members of hundreds of members be expected to contribute to the movement?I never said they should - you're trying to respond to a proposal that no one actually brought up.
Gleason just copied the mapYou keep saying that. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever. You claim to have it, so go ahead.
I have a lot of fun at it as a lot others do. LOL.You really don't come across as having a lot of fun. All this religious zeal must be exhausting.
Again why should I when if you really wanted to know the truth you could find out for yourselves?Because we already found out the truth, and you're wrong. If you want to convince us otherwise, you're going to have to actually make a case for it, instead of just saying "if you wanted to you'd already agree with me".
Gleason's Map is so obviously identical with the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection that one would assume he just copied it.But it's not identical. What you mean is "I think these are similar, and that's somehow bad". I don't understand why you think anyone cares.
It was just curious that there was no note as to its true source.Define "true".
I think Middleton's Map even went to a statement that it was not a projection.Yes.
By reality I mean that the earth is a globe and there are projections and Gleason's map closely resembles one.Yes, I know what you mean. That's why I called it a religious conviction and insisted on differentiating it from actual reality.
As for Middleton's map I don't see how anyone could consider it being accurate in any sense.My guess is that you don't understand what "accurate" means. Perhaps you mean "precise".
If you can prove that Gleason's map doesn't resemble the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection I would be interested in knowing your reason.Define "resembles". For all I care, a dog resembles a cow because each has four legs. Your request is to falsify an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Unsurprisingly, I won't do that because I don't waste my times on the likes of you.
I have evidence that the map is a copyAh, you should have said so! By all means, present it! I'm all ears!
If you really have doubts or beliefs about the accuracy of Gleason's or Middleton's maps I would suggest you consult authorities on the subject if you question my opinions.rofl, what a pathetic cop out
I'll just leave it at that. No further comments. I will leave any further research up to you.
All of it has been debunked countless timesWould you like to present some evidence to substantiate this claim, or are you just going to air things into the ether hoping that someone takes you word for it?
(1) In the sense that Gleason's claims for his map in relation to sceptimatic's claims for his genius.This attempt at explaining what you mean really doesn't help. I'm just going to guess what you mean, since you're unable to articulate yourself.
(2) Reality ? It works every day where I have worked.I see you decided to ignore my use of quotation marks. Your "reality" is very different from reality, and this is a great example of it. You see what you want to see, and only that.
(3)Glad to hear that. I've worked in the areas of using projections of maps , geometry and computers to some degree of being used skillfully. Or at least a lot of people have used them skillfully without resorting to "Satanism." Are you now acknowledging that maps are made from projections of the globe ?No. This is, once again, a great example of you considering your religious convictions to somehow hold weight in the observable universe. They do not.
Gleason's map looks like and acts like a copy of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Globe but that doesn't mean it is a copy of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Globe.Define "copy".
But the subject was Gleason's and Middleton's maps. They really are based on a projection even if they are claimed they aren't projections.Is denial the same as lying ?Please substantiate or rescind this claim. We have no business dealing with unfalsifiable hypotheses here.
Just wondered if the FES regarded Gleason's Map about the same as they regard sceptimatic ?I have no idea what you mean by that.
I am guilty of making the old Round Earth mistake of dealing in reality. LOL.Ah, yes, good old "reality". How's that religion working out for you?
PS- Do you have any comments on the USN and the FAA as mentioned previously ?Any projection can be used for navigation if used skilfully. I guess "reality" precludes you from understanding computers and/or geometry and forces you to resort to "Satanism".
I consider it censor shipAnd?
I might as well just leave this nonsense as "starman" had the sense to do long ago. I haven't seen any posts for "ausGeoff" lately either. Maybe he got tired of it too. Maybe I should too. LOL.Maybe you should. We have a constant supply of trolls here, losing one would be good news. LOL.
I think state funding is a different issue from federal funding. The whole point of states is to represent a smaller subset of the population, to better suit their needs and wants. If the population of a state, in general, doesn't mind funding abortion why is it a problem?If that's the case, that's more or less fine by me.