Who is more trollish? The troll or the troll who follows him?

Your score

There is no score, silly child. There are no points, no judges, and no audience.

You can't win a conversation, but you can lose the plot / point of it.

Trump lost fair and square and will never become president again because he tried to pull a coup on January 6

What an odd non sequitur. Sticking to a script / just a bot?

why you're afraid to click my links.

Lol. Grow up.

Shut up and fuck off report fag we both know it was you

? Both know what was me?

You keep acting like that idle threat will scare me when i can just make another account

It's not an idle threat, it's an earnest and considerate warning. It is true you can just make another account, but if you like posting here - you should follow the policies. They help to make the community better, and will help you to effectively communicate and learn the discipline to control your emotions. If you can't master your emotions, you will remain their slave :(

I could make 20 and just down vote all your posts if i wanted and mass report your account too but i have a life unlike you

People with "lives" don't think such things. Trolls/shills do.

Now reply again my nigger slave

This is not conpro. Tallestshil antics are not welcome here.

Ah to be young. You have no idea how pitiful you are acting :(

Those that can't attack the thought, attack the thinker instead out of desperation and incompetence.

You're the one still here forced to reply

I choose to reply, as i can choose to report you and get you banned, or simply block you at my leisure.

Remember, resorting to attacking the thinker instead of the thought is what the intellectually feeble and incompetent do. Do better, if you can.

If you used science or empirical evidence you wouldn't be a flat earther

Who said i was a "flat earther"? We all know what happens when you assume...

As for the rest of the childish ad hom, that only demonstrates your weakness and is a violation of policy here. If you like commenting here, don't make a mod explain it to you the hard way.

Like you're doing right now with your conformist way to try and not conform using child like logic that you have to see it to believe it

Lol. That's you! "Look at my picture"!

I am saying that seeing isn't good enough.

Empiricism, aka science, is about measurement.

If i didn't have anything better to do

You evidently don't. That's pretty pitiful.

Lol.

Always remember to ignore anything anyone says, especially if they have a differing view to your own. That way you'll never learn anything new, ever :(

Found the report fag

I didn't report you, but you should be afraid that someone will. You are violating the rules of this community, and do not deserve to be here.

Again, learn to read and attack content - it's what intelligent people do. Childish insult just demonstrates your weakness and incompetence :(

Do better if you can.

This isn't conpro. This kind of vapid insult can and will get you banned here.

If you like being able to comment on conspiracies, don't make a mod explain it to you the hard way.

not reading

Identifying your problem is the first step in doing something about it.

here is a picture

I have pictures of the lochness monster, bigfoot, and ghosts. Does that make them real too?

You sound like

Still can't read, and so have to resort to childish insult? You know, bots can't read or respond to content either :(

not worth having an intellectual discussion

Then why are you acting so afraid? You'll endlessly spit vapid insult, but can't read or respond to the things i've said. Don't be such a coward.

you have contrarian skepticism

All skepticism is "contrarian", by nature. You are instead arguing for conformity while vapidly and reflexively/compulsively ridiculing those who are skeptical. This is the commonplace behavior of the religious zealot, and all those without the ability to respond to content intelligently instead. If you don't master your emotions, you will always be their slave.

Eat a tide pod.

You should know, as tallestshil does, that this sort of ad hominem is both unwelcome here and a violation of the rules. If you like commenting in conspiracies, i would avoid having a mod explain that to you.

Remember, spewing vapid insult is only a demonstration that you are a simpleton and childishly lack emotional discipline. If you are able, attack my thoughts instead; it's what all the intelligent and capable do.

You don't have thoughts

Then you need to learn to read, and reread my thoughts above.

If you are capable of responding to those thoughts, you should. Swinging wildly with childish insult is pitiful, and demonstrates your weakness :(

looks extremely fake.

there is much more compelling fake iss footage available than this which hasn't been so obviously tampered with.

This is a very old episode of "in search of".

Out of curiosity, what is the other documentary you mentioned below? And do you know of any others about coral castle that are worth watching?

Those people talking at 4:40 aren't the cosmonot though...

Those are just two tv people talking about it who have no direct knowledge.

That is neo1's point.

you retarded nigger faggot, kill yourself. You're a fed until proven autistic.

Now that sounds exactly like something tallestshil would say...

When you ignore the content/thoughts and instead attack the thinker, you demonstrate your intellectual weakness and that you lack the discipline to control your emotions (and instead let them control you).

Try harder, if you can. Attack my thoughts! Attacking me instead only proves you weren't capable.

I recommend the documentary/catholic propaganda "the principle" on this subject.

It contains some of the worlds foremost astronomers and astrophysicists explaining it in some detail, and is well worth a watch.

You claim to have evidence but refuse to show it

You seem very confused. When did you ask for evidence and when did i refuse it (please quote/provide links to my statements)?

Are you confusing me with someone else?

You cannot even remotely explain your cosmological model

What is "my cosmological model"? We all know what happens when you assume...

In any case - explanation is arbitrary/trivial. What matters is if your explanation is correct! Merely having an explanation is what most all mythology is for.

You make only extremely vague statements

Incorrect. I suggest you re-read my recent comments to you. There are several (at least three) explicit and concrete statements which you ignored/misunderstood.

If you re-read and still don't see them - ask questions and i am happy to help (when i can)! The more specific the question, the more likely you will receive a specific answer you are seeking.

Same old, same old.

You ain't never had a friend like me ;

You refuse to make any concrete statement.

I made several concrete statements, did you not read/understand them?

When you don't understand, try asking questions!

Then how does it look like?

No one has seen the entirety of the world with their eyes. It may not be possible (such as in your worldview), doubly so if it isn't finite.

It appears to us (locally, obviously) as a largely flat disc stretching out in all directions as far as the eyes can see (with topology, of course) - but in the words of obi wan, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them".

If you learn to read, you already have 3 answers for why i won't.

My apologies, i wrote the above because it appeared you had just responded to my comment above with "Why can't you post it here" again. This website currently has a bug where comments are being duplicated and coming in twice - apparently sometimes with a considerable delay between them.

If you are earnestly interested in any and/or all of the answers to that copypasta gish gallop - why are you so afraid of not click one link to get them?

Would you care to discuss/share your method(s) over on c/flatearthresearch?

I, and others, are very interested in such things.

As number 9 in a list of definitions for the word, it somehow doesn't seem as bad. I still don't like the verbiage, because it is plainly incorrect that a model must depict something "that cannot be directly observed" - in all contexts of the word.