Flat Earth Uprising?

**Frownland** · 01-10-2017, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N

sorry dude, but your answer inot a paraphrased version of jansz's. his (i get the feeling jansz is a guy) was succinct. yours was "the sun and comets aren't the same."

Among other things. You don't need to get all defensive, I just call em like I see em. Kinda inarguable.

**Janszoon** · 01-10-2017, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N

i get the feeling jansz is a guy

I get that feeling too.

P A N · 01-10-2017, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Among other things. You don't need to get all defensive, I just call em like I see em.

it's only defensive because you made a mistake in your rationale by assuming that your argument and jansz's are the same when they aren't similar, and then going on to attribute that to what you see as my style. you can't blame a guy for having no appreciation of that. anyway. i REALLY have to go. bye guys.

**Frownland** · 01-10-2017, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N

it's only defensive because you made a mistake in your rationale by assuming that your argument and jansz's are the same when they aren't similar, and then going on to attribute that to what you see as my style. you can't blame a guy for having no appreciation of that. anyway. i REALLY have to go. bye guys.

But if Janzs's argument is right, then how can mine not be right? You must not understand my logic.

DwnWthVwls · 01-10-2017, 05:34 PM

Obviously because of logic.

P A N · 01-10-2017, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

But if Janzs's argument is right, then how can mine not be right? You must not understand my logic.

i just got out of the shower, and mistakenly read this.

the difference between yours and his is that he brought up the fact that the tail of a comet isn't behind it. it is based on its position relative to the sun. he must have saw the flaw in my thinking for what it was, which was that i was thinking the sun should have a tail because it is supposed to be moving. i was seeing the tail of the comet as being the result of its movement through space. i was incorrect. your argument was that the sun and comets are different in composition/substance/state, and because of that, their movements through space appear different. your argument - like mine - assumed the comet to have a tail which was indeed a tail. the tail follows the comet. janzs' argument throws that out the window.

P A N · 01-10-2017, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Obviously because of logic.

very much so.

**Frownland** · 01-10-2017, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N

i just got out of the shower, and mistakenly read this.

the difference between yours and his is that he brought up the fact that the tail of a comet isn't behind it. it is based on its position relative to the sun. he must have saw the flaw in my thinking for what it was, which was that i was thinking the sun should have a tail because it is supposed to be moving. i was seeing the tail of the comet as being the result of its movement through space. i was incorrect. your argument was that the sun and comets are different in composition/substance/state, and because of that, their movements through space appear different. your argument - like mine - assumed the comet to have a tail which was indeed a tail. the tail follows the comet. janzs' argument throws that out the window.

No, you misunderstand me. If my argument was wrong, then logically Janzs' must have been wrong too.

P A N · 01-10-2017, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

No, you misunderstand me. If my argument was wrong, then logically Janzs' must have been wrong too.

why? elaborate.

**Frownland** · 01-10-2017, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N

why? elaborate.

Well since his argument had a point, and mine had a point, aren't they the same point?