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.

Topics - Baby Thork

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Technology & Information / What I want for xmas
« on: October 14, 2018, 11:16:30 AM »

He was launched yesterday. He looks pretty cool. I know I'd be bored of him in a few weeks ... but I want to see how the little bugger works. Way better than an Alexa puck, that's for sure.

Arts & Entertainment / Philistine desecrates Westminster Abbey
« on: September 26, 2018, 10:43:27 PM »

Look at the state of that. It looks like it was drawn by a 9 year old. In Westminster, next to beautiful art works that eyesore. "I designed it on an iPad". Yeah, that's not a ringing endorsement. When you see a guy dressed like Elton John professing to be an artist ... don't let him near anything that matters. Let him wipe faeces on a canvas in his own studio or slaughter a horse and pickle it for the monstrosity that is the Tate gallery ... but don't let them anywhere near something like Westminster Abbey. People need to tell the Emperor when he is wearing no clothes. How did this talent-less geriatric rise to be a renowned artist? The system is broken.

Suggestions & Concerns / Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« on: September 21, 2018, 10:53:40 AM »
I have received a notification that I have had 6 warnings since March.


Well that's only one bad post a month. And I'm someone who averages close to 100 posts a month.

One errant post in one hundred isn't a habitual offender.

Someone else might have made 70 posts to my 600 and got 5 warnings ... but they'd get more grace than me.

I see this as penalising the people who post here more often over the people who just duck in to disrupt things and then leave again.

I'd ask that warnings aren't erased after a period of time ... but are erased after a number of 'good' posts. So that your posting ratio is more relevant than just an arbitrary length of time. This penalises regulars less, and casual sh**posters more.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The moral of the story?
« on: September 16, 2018, 01:26:35 PM »
Most fairy-tales have a moral of a story. But there is one I can't wrap my head around.

Jack and the beanstalk.

The hero is an idiot, who thinks a cow is worth 5 beans. He lives at home with his mother and its actually her cow. Not only is Jack an imbecile, but he's also a thief. His neighbour is a giant who happens to live in a castle on a cloud. Jack begins by trespassing and then breaks into the giant's home, stealing a bag of gold coins. This isn't enough for Jack. He goes back and the second time, he steals a goose that lays golden eggs. Still not done, Jack goes and breaks in a third time and steals a magic harp that plays by itself.

This harp then goes off like a burglar alarm, and wakes the giant, who understandably chases the thief to get his stuff back. Jack rushes back down his beanstalk and then chops it down whilst the giant is still climbing down it. This murderous acts sees the giant fall and split his head open and die as he hits the ground, leaving the giant's wife a widow with no money, because Jack took it all.

Jack and his mother then live happily ever after.

So questions ...
Why is an idiot murdering thief the hero?
What does the giant do to be the villain and deserve having his stuff nicked, be murdered and leave his wife a poor widow?
Why is Jack not in court, with the giants wife suing for damages? This is clearly a matter for the British courts and British law does not allow such acts to go unpunished.

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman. - Its right there. This has happened in a leafy shire like a Midsomer murder, and the local fuzz hasn't bothered its arse to find out who is terrorising the giant community. I can verify that we no longer have giants in England, so why were they not protected?

I don't see the purpose of this fairy-tale. Where is the moral of the story? Because at the moment you are telling your kids that if you miss school, burgle people's homes and kill them when confronted, you get to live happily ever after.  ???

Arts & Entertainment / The Hunter: Call of the wild
« on: September 09, 2018, 04:21:22 PM »
So I bought a new computer game. Its a hunting simulator. I wanted something where there was progression, but you can pick it up and leave it as you like. Something calm and slow paced. Blowing the entrails out of the back of a blacktail deer is perfect for me.

I'm not very good at the game. I keep winging all the animals and not really killing them. I've been hitting them in the shoulder blades, in the meat of their neck, in their jaws, their stomachs ... I'm not great at the kill shot. The upshot is that I'm now walking around a national park where almost all the animals are limping and nursing horrendous injuries. They are leaking blood everywhere, they are behaving strangely and not going to the places they used to ...

I was initially thinking, meh, just shoot anything that moves and if it dies great, and if it doesn't ... no matter. Its only when I came across a herd of 8 deer and found 6 of them were nursing injuries I'd already given them, I realised the monster I have become. I'm now going back to the places I've been to euthanise all the animals I missed the first time ... if I can find them which mostly I can't.

The game is really beautiful, the scenery is stunning, water and weather effects are great. The screenshot above is how the game actually looks. I like that the grass flattens when I walk on it. The animals move properly, the detailed anatomy shots showing where you hit them are great, nice to know if you smashed their spine or they suffocated on their own blood.

You really do have to hit them in the right place to shatter vertebra or pierce their heart. Head shots need to be through the brain. When you find an animal you maimed earlier, you get to see where those bullets went and why it didn't kill them. Starting to favour shooting Bambi in the spine now. That drops them fast.

There's good progression. Skills, lures, guns. Trying to shoot a moose with the rifle I have is practically impossible. They also get aggressive and charge at you. Currently a good shot will kill a black bear, but brown bears seem to soak up my bullets. Rabbits are too easy and I get a low ethics score for shredding them. I think I need to save up for a shotgun. My best kill was an elk which I switched to my 60lb compound bow and devastated its tailbone. Immediately paralysed I went to pick up the XP and in game credits. Best harvest yet. I missed a white stag, well missed isn't the best description, its still hobbling around somewhere. But you get trophy animals and rare animals.

Online reviews claim bugs etc, but its been out for a while now and I haven't found any. Perfect game for me. Just my kind of thing. Very happy with it.

Suggestions & Concerns / hyperlink quotes
« on: September 02, 2018, 09:04:36 PM »
Just a small thing but it niggles me often.

If I want to quote someone on the forum I can do so as below.

That post gets a thumbs-down from me.

And its all good + I get a hyperlink to that message and it will take you there.

But lets say I am posting in the upper fora, and I want to quote an external source

Quote from:
1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

I still want the reference, but I kind of want my link working too. So what we always do is

Quote from:
1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

And it just seems unnecessary. + some people are lazy and don't give a link. If the quote would take a url, it would just save adding the source all the time. I understand it would be hard to keep track of the links people add, but we could make it a bit of code only we know ... so noobs to the site aren't sending us to pron sites.

Code: [Select]
[quote author="Psalms 19.1" url=""][sup]1[/sup]The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.[/quote]

with the extra 'url' tag added which isn't normal to most forums, but would save us always adding sources separately. I'd like a target="_blank" on it by default too so as not to push them off our site. With that said, a target="_blank" on the internal link would be nice too. I most likely want to come back to the original post to reply, and that's a lot of back back back if I went down a rabbit hole.

Just a small thing.

Flat Earth Community / Flat Earth Memberships
« on: August 22, 2018, 04:59:02 PM »
So ... memberships.

The flat earth society hasn't really done memberships in a long while. Even then, it was Daniel and it was slow. Now our site is in the ascendancy, is the one with the good Twitter, the one ranking on google and basically the defacto flat earth society ... well handing out any memberships is pretty much down to us.

So, I've had a chat with Pete and we have a number of suggestions. But this will be due to popular demand ... its us providing something for the community.

1) You don't want memberships, its a dumb idea. In fact, if I would die in a fire, that would be most helpful.

2) We make membership a thing you do yourself for free. There can be a certificate you can download and fill in yourself. Maybe we give you some free digital goodies like a tfes desktop background to download etc, but it'll be all digital stuff because ... well free.

3) We do a membership similar to Daniel's old way. You get a personalised certificate, we'll do a plastic membership card with your name on, you might get a flat key ring. I'll be an envelope of papers.

4) We go balls to the wall and set you up with your own TFES starter kit for £30 GBP/$35 USD/$50 AUD/40,000,000 rupees. Basically like a TFES lootcrate. An example would be ...

A branded box for the loot.

9" frizbee cos flat earth huh? Could have a flat earth map printed on it and write the flat earth society over the Pacific Ocean.

A keychain. With our logo.

Round Earth stress reliever so you can crush the round earth with your hands, again branded

An A4 frame for your certificate which will be printed and inside

Awareness Bracelet ... cos you want to raise awareness right?

Membership card. Your name on it, a serial number, glossy and all branded up.

Branded pen

Branded mug or shiny drink thing

Branded Beanie

Throw a glossy leaflet in there.

So that is about the scale of the box I can do for $35 each. Sure, I can change what's in it, maybe branded mouse mats or a branded spirit level ruler or whatever.

Basically if you became a member of say Leicester City FC, you'd get a kit like below.

Option 4 is the TFES version of that, but being non-profit, we could give you a bit more bang for buck.

Either way (unless Pete has other ideas), I have no intention of logging member's names. a) it'll be full of psudeonyms, b) people will be signing each other up and we will get remove my name requests, c) the fancy bears will only steal this honey pot of data and publish to the world if we collect it and keep secret. So whatever you are given, has to be proof of membership in itself.

Thoughts ... ???

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Pope decries death penalty
« on: August 22, 2018, 12:07:05 AM »
So the Pope has declared that the death penalty is unacceptable in all cases.

What a prize idiot!

Christianity is founded on the death penalty. Without the death penalty, Jesus Christ can't die for our sins to save humanity. The logo of the church is the cross! People make the sign of the death penalty every time they pray.

This is what happens when you walk away from traditional Christian values and join the Liberal bandwagon. Zero credibility for this one.

Twice this week I have been contacted by sellers on Amazon where I have left a less than stellar review, both offering me money to remove my review.

Quote from: Amazon seller
Dear Baby Thork,

I'm glad to contact you again. We have seen your review and we pay high attention to the problem you met.

We have reflected the problem to the manufacturer.

Would you mind allowing us to refund you £10 for both of the mouse pads? If this is ok for you, please let us know.

Any problems, please feel free to contact us, we will do our best to satisfy you.

If you are satisfied with our customer service, would you please remove the negative review for us?

Looking forward to your reply.

So basically they want to pay me to shut up. And this is twice in one week and I've had it a few times before.

Which makes me think, should I just always give a bad review? I'll save a whole heap of money in the long run. I mean, if these sellers are literally buying bad reviews up, there isn't much in the way of ethics going on anyway. I might as well profit. How do other people feel about this shady practice?

Flat Earth Media / Flat Earthers get a drubbing from Channel 4
« on: July 31, 2018, 05:58:49 PM »

Technology & Information / Need an office/computer desk
« on: July 28, 2018, 09:27:48 PM »
I just bought a new office chair as my last one was falling to bits. I could use a good desk to go with it.

Anyone got any good suggestions? I've been looking at the height adjustable ones that you can stand or sit at, but I don't want to pay £400 for a new desk - or if I did, it would have to be an epic desk.

Suggestions & Concerns / Unable to post in FE Projects
« on: July 12, 2018, 02:27:57 PM »
Is this deliberately a closed forum and should I be locked out of it?

I wanted to add

Metaphysics by Aristotle to the list of recommended texts as it has the foundations of celestial gears and lots of other FE in it. We pull quite a lot from that book.

Flat Earth Investigations / Thork's Mud Pie Theory
« on: July 04, 2018, 11:39:12 PM »
In this thread, I would like to examine Round Earth Theory, by taking the unusual step of proposing an alternate round earth theory for the formation of the earth. You may either side with me to help me flesh out my theory (more difficult), or side against me (easier) to protect a core belief of Round Earth Theory. In essence, I'm giving you a brand new earth theory to discuss. There are no automatic teams in this debate. If Tom Bishop wishes to defend plate tectonics, he is welcome to do so. If Gary Green wishes to back Thork's Mud Pie Theory (TMPT), that is also fine. The aim is to thoroughly examine the science behind the creation of a round earth, so that you improve your understanding or hone your debating skills and that will be possible whichever side you take.

Anything I post in blue is an agreed fact of science
Anything I post in red is an area of science where TMPT is superior and would improve our understanding of the world.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I shall begin.

I have never liked the theory of plate tectonics since I first learned about it in school. Some things did not sit well with me, and they never improved as I got older. I am not alone in having my doubts about this sketchy theory, in fact small groups of scientists across the world also share my scepticism.
However, they haven't proposed a better alternative. Today I will.

I will start with what I dislike about plate tectonics.

Continental drift.

All the land is together in one lump. It then all decides to split up. No explanation given as to why it would do this. I am only left with 'malevolent plumes of underground magma'. In order to have enough heat, we also have to make the earth radioactive in its core ... a place we can't actually detect radio activity because we can't get at it. - is iron radio active? I'm adding in how much of what now?

If this isn't bad enough, because when scientists rewind the clock back to get to Pangea, they have only used up 200 million years of 6.4 billion. they also notice some of the rock they have, is similar to other rock elsewhere on earth, and it doesn't fit their Pangea starting positions. In a stretch of the imagination, they theorise that the continents must all clump together and split up over and over again. A list of these fantasy continents below.

Supercontinent name   Age (Mya: millions years ago)
Vaalbara   ~3,636–2,803
Ur   ~2,803–2,408
Kenorland   ~2,720–2,114
Arctica   ~2,114–1,995
Atlantica   ~1,991-1,124
Columbia (Nuna)   ~1,820–1,350
Rodinia   ~1,130–750
Pannotia   ~633-573
Gondwana   ~596-578
Laurasia and Gondwana   ~472-451
Pangaea   ~336-173

There is no reason given for this deciding to clump together and then deciding to split over and over. It doesn't have a name, it doesn't have a mechanism. Much like multi-verse sci-fi scientists, plate tectonic scientists have theorised multiple splits and coming togethers, having observed just one.

My second objection is due to the moon landings. (Yes I can envoke that as evidence in this thread). The rock brought back from the moon, is the exact same as that found on earth. This led scientists to theorise earth was hit by another planet which left us with a moon. They call the planet that hit earth, Theia.

I want you to note the date that this impact happened ...
Quote from:
Theia (/ˈθiːə/) is a hypothesized ancient planetary-mass object in the early Solar System that, according to the giant impact hypothesis, collided with another planetary-mass object, Gaia (the early Earth) around 4.5 billion years ago.

It is interesting that the impact happened and we start that as the age of the earth ... and yet according to the theory, the earth already existed in the form of a planet called Gaia. But no date for that. The age of the sun is 4.6 billion years ... maybe I have 100 million years to work with?

Thork's Mud Pie Theory

One of the other things that annoys me about the current theory is, if Theia hit Gaia ... where did it hit? Like where is the crater ... or even any evidence that such an impact happened? If I can find where a meteor hit earth 3 billion years ago
Why can't I work out where an entire planet hit earth just 1.5 billion years earlier? Something isn't right. But relax, I'm going to tell you how it happened.

As the Gaia formed and cooled, it makes sense that the densest materials will fall to the centre, followed by the next most dense and so on in layers, with the lightest elements and compounds on the top.

I propose that Gaia was a sterile ocean world. Perfectly smooth and round. It contains no life, no continental crust and it is stable ... it has formed a cooled crust, there are no earthquakes or volcanoes. There is no energy to generate them (I'll elaborate on that in a while.)

Theia is just a bigger version of the moon. All rock right the way down. It is made entirely of what is now continental crust. NASA says they are the same type of rock.

Now, the density of Oceanic crust is about 3.0 grams per cubic centimeter as opposed to continental crust which has a density of about 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter. Gaia also has an iron core.
So I have a small light weight planet, hitting a much bigger harder planet. Using Zetetic theory I went into my garden this morning.

I hurled a mud pie at my wall. If Gaia is my wall (hard and heavy) and my mud pie is Theia ...

I just created Pangea.

However, Pangea is a crescent shape, not a round splat.

Back to my wall. If I throw another mud pie, but this time not straight on. Instead at a glancing blow of 45 degrees from the direction of the red arrow...

Now I get my crescent.

Try this yourself. I'm in the middle of a heatwave and the ground is very dry, so my mud pies are a bit crumbly. But having been a small boy once, I can tell you the general shape of a mud pie thrown at my neighbours car from the right about 45 degrees angle is

I have my Pangea.

I now know where the earth was hit by another planet and can see the evidence ... I'm stood on it.
I know Neil Armstrong was not the first man to walk on the moon, that honour goes to a man named Adam.
I know earth was hit by a glancing blow and can tell from which angle and using the relative densities of those two planets + the known sizes of the continents can calculate at what speed due to the shape of my mud pie crescent and how much stuck to my wall (Gaia).
I have an explanation for the starting shape of the continents.
I have a genesis event, that now gives me life on earth. (I'll elaborate in a moment).

If I go back to my green diagram of Pangea above, the continents don't quite fit, so they add land between them so they do. This is all lost coast land. Sand is Continental crust, not oceanic crust ... Now I have explained where all the sand that covers the ocean came from.

As an average over the centuries, we have only ever lost land. Any new land created by volcanoes is more than cancelled by erosion. This is the thing that binds my theory. Explained below by the most excellent Prof Brian Cox. Its only a 5 min video. Very informative.

So, entropy makes sandcastles collapse. Things tend towards the highest state of entropy. So why do I have continental drift? Because the sandcastle is collapsing into the ocean. My mud pie has made the earth bulge on one side. And my earth is trying to become round again. Look again at pangea.

The continents are spreading out! evenly. So that the continental crust is sitting evenly on the oceanic crust. Entropy is driving plate tectonics, not malevolent plumes of magma. I know we lose land. I can see the continents spreading, the land will eventually all end up as sand under the sea. I now know how the earth will look in billions of years time. Continental crust will float on Oceanic Crust as it is less dense.

The earth is trying to make itself round again, and now I know this ...
I can predict where the forces are using entropy and can predict earthquakes because I know exactly where the earth will move next in order to become more round than it already is and I'm no longer at the mercy of malevolent plumes of magma that I have no idea how much force they apply. I'm using gravity and mass.
I'm putting put fires all over the place with this theory. But there's more.
Politicians can stick climate change taxes up their backsides because of course sea level is rising. It always has. It is inevitable ... the sandcastle is collapsing into the sea.
We also know earth used to have lots more volcanic activity than it does today from things like ice cores. My theory supports this as the earth would have been its least round straight after I have Pangea. The most entropy occurs right away. It can't be explained as well with moving magma plumes that seem to move for their own sake.

Now I have a theory where the continents only split once. The reason plate tectonics suggest that it must of happened many times is because some of the rock in once place on earth is like rock from another, but they don't meet back up at pangea, so they bodge another complete rearrangement to get those rocks near each other in one of the other iterations.

I would also agree those rocks must have once been together ... but not on earth, within Theia before the impact. Now they can not be together anymore as we find them on earth. I don't need this silly together splitting together spliting nonsense. In fact I can use those rocks to rebuild the model of Theia before the impact!

I also now know what causes the genesis event.

Life happens right after the collision 4.5 billion years ago.

My sterile ocean world which was just water on top of rock, suddenly has sand under the sea, land and coastline. I now have weather, I now have ocean currents, I have rates of change as nutrients can be pushed from cold to warm places, and with a bit more erosion I have soil.


So, you have a smorgasbord of topics to choose from. Plate tectonics, continental drift, super continents, giant impact hypothesis, entropy, geology, evolution, earthquakes, age of the earth ... and you can also choose to create this new world with me, or rip it to bits. If you got this far, thank you, I hope your response will be thoughtful as an OP like this takes a considerable investment of time.

Flat Earth Investigations / Google AI
« on: June 24, 2018, 04:11:32 PM »
Welp, brand new forum, more flexibility to look at all kinds of conspiracy theories etc so I'll kick things off.

So Google AI has been coming on in leaps and bounds. They basically have a neural network, give the thing the rules of whatever it is doing and let it work out how to do it. In the example above, google told their AI about the rules of chess. And that's it. Just the rules. They didn't teach it any openings, any tactics, they taught it absolutely nothing. 4 hours later, not only could it destroy any human on earth, it also stuffed the world's best chess program in a 100 game match by winning 28, drawing 72 and losing zero games.

One of the games I have seen is very interesting. Google wins as black (harder to do). Twice during the game, white offered a draw by repeating the same move 3 times. In both cases, google's AI decided to weaken its own position by refusing the draw and picking an alternative move. This was completely unexpected by programmers who expected it to only ever want to strengthen its position in a game. Stockfish (the rival machine) ends up resigning about 83 moves in ... note most people didn't even know stockfish could resign. No human has forced it to do that. Also Stockfish calculates 70million moves per second ... google's machine was only looking at 80,000 moves per second. It seems it just understood chess better than anyone has ever done before. Google has only released 10 of the 100 games to the public, but it is already clear it doesn't play chess like any human, or any computer for that matter. It really does have its own way of doing it.

Google have also used the same AI to dominate Dota 2 and a game called Go.

The thing is, I wonder what else google uses this for, and would be interested to see your opinions? For example, tax avoidance would be an obvious choice. The rules are known (the law), let the algorithm find ways of being creatively efficient at avoiding tax and milking subsidies. 
Serving adverts more likely to make you buy things is another obvious choice.
Altering political opinion by pushing certain view points to sway elections is another I can see google doing, using the algorithm to be as persuasive as possible.

Google keep talking about curing cancer and other altruistic things like this ... but I don't see them using this power for good.

What do you think google will do with AI, and how can the public defend themselves against it?

Flat Earth Investigations / Roles Reversed - seismology
« on: June 13, 2018, 06:33:55 PM »
Read me
This is going to be an unusual thread. Just to mix things up, in it, the Flat Earthers on this site are going to argue the earth is round, and the round earthers have to show it is flat.

I'm going to pick a topic, make an OP ... and lets see how well all you round earthers do without google for help.
You have a 180 year old text book for help
You have a wiki ...
You can use the site search function to find previous threads

Rules ...
You need to make a coherent argument ... you have to have a point to discuss and you need something to back your assertion ... something showing your point is valid
You need to die on that hill. If you get blown up, take it like a man and retire from the thread ... you lost
You are a team ... bail each other out and win at all costs. Don't leave a man behind
Squealing that you think the earth is round anyway so it doesn't matter is the ultimate dishonour. In this thread you think the earth is flat

This is an exercise in debating skill, problem solving and teamwork. FErs don't work alone. You don't want to be in that place either.

Depending on how much this was enjoyed, we can do it on a more regular basis with other topics but this one is about ...

The OP
It is my assertion that the earth can be shown to be round, comparing the difference between P-Waves and S-waves during an earthquake.

Both types of seismic wave can be detected near the earthquake centre but only P-waves can be detected on the other side of the Earth. This is because P-waves (primary waves) can travel through solids and liquids whereas S-waves (secondary waves) can only travel through solids. This means the liquid part of the core blocks the passage of S-waves.

On a flat earth, the s-waves should be able to travel across the plane unencumbered. But they are not registered. What happens to these s-waves and how does flat earth explain them?

Please note the shadow zones. You don't get any s-waves on the other side of the earth. There are shadow zones for p-waves, but they aren't on the other side of the earth. You'll note they tally up nicely with the sections of a round earth with mantle and core layers.

Focus on the s-waves

Absolutely no s-waves after 103 degrees. Why would s-waves abruptly stop on a flat earth?

Indeed it is using these waves that we calculate the epicentre of an earth quake, knowing the propagation times of p-waves and s-waves.

Now a real word example.

green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)


Note how the yellow and orange s-waves and the green primary p-waves (not reflected) both terminate at 103 degrees as predicted by the round earth model.

How does flat earth explain this phenomenon? Why are your s-waves stopping abruptly at 103 degrees on a flat earth with nothing in the way ... a flat surface right across earth? This is station data from 40 independent stations across the earth. It is no small sample set. How is it your s-waves radiate out from the epicenter exactly 11,465km and come to a dead stop, no matter where the earthquake?

I can pull this type of data from any earthquake. Always the same ... 103 degrees (round earth) or 11,456km (flat earth) from the epicenter.

*NOTE - posting this on and playing us off one against the other gets you an instant disqualification!  >o<

Flat Earth Media / flatTube
« on: June 07, 2018, 02:44:11 PM »
A flat earth video gallery on the site is something that has been muted on and off for some time. Due to the implementation time I don't see it happening any time soon.

The idea being we can create the best flat earth video gallery resource on the internet with all the best videos to watch in one place.

However, there is no point building such a thing if we don't use it. To that end I thought I'd start a thread in here, for people to put the best videos.

These should be videos that clearly describe flat earth theories.
That are well made (unless the content is so groundbreaking, production quality is irrelevant).
The videos can be pro or anti-FE, but they must be notable for their quality or importance. A video with deGrasse Tyson may not be very insightful (his observations are usually very facile, he caters for the lowest common denominator), but he is a prominent figure. 
They can be mainstream news clips. Or public figures with pro/anti FE messages.

Feel free to embed with a timestamp to the relevant part, if part of a longer video to start the play at say 4 minutes 15 seconds in.

The hope is that if we end up with a lot of great videos, they can be tagged and searchable and then we can embed directly from youtube in order no one loses any ad revenue, views etc and we aren't stealing content. Only hosting embedded content so more people can enjoy the original and bringing more people interested in the topic to the best content.

Tagging would be very much appreciated so we know what the content is about and we can make it filterable later.

Suggested tags for videos.

#proFE or #antiFE for every video



We aren't interested in just mainstream RE. It has to be as part of a rebuttal to FE. Videos on just coriolis would be pointless in a flat earth video library.
Add appropriate tags as necessary but try to stick to pro/anti, relevance and topic so we can make filters. We'd also look at views and date made later for popular vids or trending or latest options.

Lets see. If this thread becomes a good resource, we can look to put together a proper library. If not, we knew not to waste our time.

Technology & Information / GDPR
« on: June 02, 2018, 11:53:13 AM »
Thanks Pete. Tbh, my board is so tiny and under the radar I don't think in practice I need to do anything.
To be honest, I don't think GDPR is even meant for small companies. I think it is part of a bigger EU/US trade war. The EU is very protectionist and getting worse by the day. The squealing about tariffs on steel is ridiculous. Why shouldn't America put tariffs on something it doesn't need? The point of trade is you trade the things you have a surplus of, for the things you need. America doesn't need steel. It can make enough of its own. Iron ore is very common, America has no shortage of labour.

GDPR is aimed squarely at tech giants. Facebook, Apple, Google. They are looting European countries. They give you nothing (nothing physical) and you give them money ... and then they find ways to pay zero tax on those sales. Europe doesn't have a single large tech company.

No EU search engine, no mainstream OS (Linux doesn't make money like Android, iOS or Windows), not a single large social media platform, no massive cloud companies like Amazon or Cloudflare or Microsoft, no massive online shops like Amazon, no huge streaming websites like youTube, Netflix or Twitch ... they've f'all. Hammering Tech doesn't hurt them at all, because there is no industry to hurt. The EU already killed every single tech company in Europe through over regulation over the last 30 years.

Phillips no longer make TVs, Siemens and Vodaphone don't make phones, ARM was the only silicon chip interest but that's been sold abroad, software companies like Amstrad, Sinclair, Atari ... all gone. Since the EU was formed and started legislating, the entire continent has regressed from being an Quaternary economy to a tertiary/secondary economy. We only do services (tertiary) like banking, but even lots of manufacturing and things like call centres have all gone abroad.

Rather than take a hard look at themselves and realise their protectionist policies have been utterly destructive to their own high tech businesses, the EU (arrogant unelected technocrats that they are) are digging their heels in even further. In trying to reduce the US and East Asian influence by regulating, they're going to make it impossible for pretty much anyone to have a global tech company in the EU.

Still, the ray of sunshine is Brexit ... maybe we can turn it around but Teresa May probably needs removing first.

Technology & Information / Facebook wants your naked photos
« on: May 23, 2018, 01:24:49 PM »

I don't even know where to start with this one. Who in their right mind would send Facebook naked photos of themselves? You'd have to have had a serious head injury to consider this. As far as trust goes, Facebook has practically none. Why would you give your most intimate images to a private corporation that has a track record of selling anything you give it, repeated data breaches and morally questionable behaviour?

Surely lawmakers should step in and outlaw this dreadful idea? Facebook should not be able to ask for nudes. What if 13 year olds send naked photos of themselves to Facebook? They are old enough for a Facebook account. Is Facebook going to amass the worlds largest collection of child pron? This is misguided at best, deeply sinister more likely. What if Facebook scan your body, notice you have say lop-sided breasts ... will they then advertise cosmetic surgery to you? Will they advertise creams to people with eczema and vitiligo? Birthmark surgery, tattoo removal, lady razors if you look unkempt, diet pills if you are packing butter?

Facebook is out of control.

Arts & Entertainment / Witcher 3 - Contains spoilers
« on: May 18, 2018, 03:56:09 PM »
So I have been playing my first game in years and years. Seems it was a good choice. I really enjoyed it and having a half decent computer to play it on made it look awesome.

I had no idea what the game was about, knew nothing of the story lines and everything was brand new to me. 

My style of game play can be boiled down to two main traits. I'm hedonistic and I'm impatient. This turned out to be a very bad combo.

Hedonism meant I tried to sleep with everything that moved. I thought this gamble paid off but ended up getting tied to a bed and ended up with neither Triss or Yennifer.
Impatience meant I had no time for Ciri's crap. In fact after it became apparent she wasn't going to sleep with me and preferred some dumb Irish farm boy, I had little time for her and ... well she died because of it. Apparently if I'd had snowball fights with her and gone to see stupid graves with her etc she'd have lived according to the internet. We aren't related in the game. I didn't want to be her father. I wanted to be her daddy. She already had a father who wasn't very nice. I was hoping I was there to help her work out her daddy issues. It didn't work like that. Also, I probably have a disease from a succubus.  :(

I guess I suck at games. I thought killing monsters was the point. Ho-hum.

Suggestions & Concerns / favicons
« on: May 15, 2018, 07:55:16 PM »
Just a small observation.

The favicon for the forum is the correct one and matches the site theme. But on the homepage, wiki, and library, we have the old favicon. It just makes it look like the site isn't all the same. A small 2 min change, I'm sure, but its been that way forever and I guess if no on ever mentions it it won't be updated. 

Also I don't know if you can change the favicon on the cafe press shop, but that doesn't match either.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >