noob essentials: troll bishop debate forfeits

this post (and it's companion) are brief guides for the forum newcomer.

this is a demonstration that tom bishop is a troll - nothing more, nothing less.  the premise is such: no rational person could believe that bishop could be repeatedly proven wrong on, and run away from, so many topics...and also be legitimately sincere in his beliefs.  (beliefs which are, by apparent unanimous consensus even among fe'ers, the most staunchly absurd among them.)

these points were collected from a narrow viewpoint.  (most are a sampling from my experience with him, and one or two from others).  it covers a very limited time frame.  i may or may not (probably not) update this post as time goes on to include future (or past) examples.

regular and especially senior members know all of this about bishop already, and won't find much value in reading on.  but for the noob, it is essential reading.

• failed to defend rowbotham's magical laws of perspective (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend claim that 700x magnification of cargo ship behind and below horizon was due to insufficient magnification (such as rowbotham's hand-held spotting scope) (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend his debunked assertion that compass spins wildly in the arctic circle
  
  
• failed to defend assertion that the 'Bedford Level Experiment' Wikipedia page is flawed (bishop claimed wallace was a fe'er)
  
  
• refused to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing
  
  
• failed to provide examples backing up his specific claims of fraud on certain nasa photos (lost on two counts, forfeited on one)
  
  
• failed to explain why do planets line up on the ecliptic in his model of planetary orbit
  
  
• failed to defend his assertions that photos of ordinary ice shelves were the "ice wall" (this was more of a punt - he said the 'real' ice wall might actually be further in past his finally conceded pseudo-ice wall)
  
  
• confronting bishop with his toronto pic lie went mysteriously undefended
  
  
• failed to defend himself when presented with a list of his blatant contradictions over statements of "photographs are not admissable as evidence"
  
  
• directly contradicted self over what the "real stars" are with ms-paint blobs in one nasa photo version, and dust on the original scan in another; failed to defend self when this fact was pointed out
  
  
• failed to defend or counterattack when his assertion that 'compasses spin wildly in seattle wa', was shredded by fe'ers
  
  
• failed to answer what evidence he would find acceptable to back up re claims
  
  
• a recent status of multiple undefended bishop claims in summary form - some already noted above
  

update 200080102: added to subject title, and added introductory text; both to pre-empt the "controversy" this post has for some reason created.

Cpt Bthimes wins! 

Congratulations! You've defeated someone who is trolling for the sake of trolling.

thank you.  that was my point, i'm glad it came across.

Congratulations! You've defeated someone who is trolling for the sake of trolling.

Actually, that's instant lose.

Proof tom won. a) this thread

b) these threads below where he accomplished smaller things.

• failed to defend rowbotham's magical laws of perspective (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend claim that 700x magnification of cargo ship behind and below horizon was due to insufficient magnification (such as rowbotham's hand-held spotting scope) (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend his debunked assertion that compass spins wildly in the arctic circle
  
  
• failed to defend assertion that the 'Bedford Level Experiment' Wikipedia page is flawed (bishop claimed wallace was a fe'er)
  
  
• refused to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing
  
  
• failed to provide examples backing up his specific claims of fraud on certain nasa photos (lost on two counts, forfeited on one)
  
  
• failed to explain why do planets line up on the ecliptic in his model of planetary orbit
  
  
• failed to defend his assertions that photos of ordinary ice shelves were the "ice wall" (this was more of a punt - he said the 'real' ice wall might actually be further in past his finally conceded pseudo-ice wall)
  
  
• confronting bishop with his toronto pic lie went mysteriously undefended
  
  
• failed to defend himself when presented with a list of his blatant contradictions over statements of "photographs are not admissable as evidence"
  
  
• directly contradicted self over what the "real stars" are with ms-paint blobs in one nasa photo version, and dust on the original scan in another; failed to defend self when this fact was pointed out
  
  
• failed to defend or counterattack when his assertion that 'compasses spin wildly in seattle wa', was shredded by fe'ers
  
  
• failed to answer what evidence he would find acceptable to back up re claims
  
  
• a recent status of multiple undefended bishop claims in summary form - some already noted above
  

Proof tom one. a) this thread

b) these threads below where he accomplished smaller things.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on January 01, 2008, 02:01:23 PM

• failed to defend rowbotham's magical laws of perspective (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend claim that 700x magnification of cargo ship behind and below horizon was due to insufficient magnification (such as rowbotham's hand-held spotting scope) (also here.)
  
  
• failed to defend his debunked assertion that compass spins wildly in the arctic circle
  
  
• failed to defend assertion that the 'Bedford Level Experiment' Wikipedia page is flawed (bishop claimed wallace was a fe'er)
  
  
• refused to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing
  
  
• failed to provide examples backing up his specific claims of fraud on certain nasa photos (lost on two counts, forfeited on one)
  
  
• failed to explain why do planets line up on the ecliptic in his model of planetary orbit
  
  
• failed to defend his assertions that photos of ordinary ice shelves were the "ice wall" (this was more of a punt - he said the 'real' ice wall might actually be further in past his finally conceded pseudo-ice wall)
  
  
• confronting bishop with his toronto pic lie went mysteriously undefended
  
  
• failed to defend himself when presented with a list of his blatant contradictions over statements of "photographs are not admissable as evidence"
  
  
• directly contradicted self over what the "real stars" are with ms-paint blobs in one nasa photo version, and dust on the original scan in another; failed to defend self when this fact was pointed out
  
  
• failed to defend or counterattack when his assertion that 'compasses spin wildly in seattle wa', was shredded by fe'ers
  
  
• failed to answer what evidence he would find acceptable to back up re claims
  
  
• a recent status of multiple undefended bishop claims in summary form - some already noted above
  

Where's tom two?

Lol i started to number the reasons he won. Then when I switched to letters I switched won and one.

Congratulations! You've defeated someone who is trolling for the sake of trolling.

thank you.  that was my point, i'm glad it came across.

Really.  Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.  I guarantee he doesn't put in half as much time playing the game with everybody as you do attempting to discredit him.

Kudos for being so decisively pwned by a troll. 

And not saying anything I (and fifteen others of longer standing) haven't already.

Sequels suck.

Tom isn't listening, why should we?

Really.  Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.  I guarantee he doesn't put in half as much time playing the game with everybody as you do attempting to discredit him.

Kudos for being so decisively pwned by a troll. 

You know for all this talk of Tom being insincere, I really have no reason to suspect that Tom is not a Zeteticist. He comes across at least as well read as I am (he's read most of the obscure 19th Century FE books that I've read, as well as some that I haven't), and I'm an FEer. Can you point me to some kind evidence for him actually being a Globularist?

to save further pointless flaming and cross-flaming going on:

the point of these two posts (lies and forfeits) was to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion that bishop is sincere.  yes, i know he is a troll.  the very point is that it stretches the limits of reason to think that someone could tell so many blatant and easily called falsehoods, and be proven wrong and just run away from so many topics (over and over), and *not* be a troll.

but we all know that, so what?

there is a bit of context missing in both of these posts, that seems to have caused a depressing amount of "controversy".  and that is, these posts were put together for the complete noob.  my intention was to create these posts merely as landing spots for links in a new sig.  i did not even think they would be visited by regulars.  unfortunately the sig has a severely limited length, and while trying to whittle it down, i had to remove any non-critical text, such as "for benefit of the noob: ".  i.e., noobs bothering to engage bishop for reasons other than mere entertainment value, should read these posts, and save themselves (and all of us) much headache.

in other words, these posts were intended as a fe community service.  see, i don't just mindlessly attack others.  i try to contribute.  and this is the thanks i get?  where is the love?

i will edit both original posts to make my intended purpose more clear.
[/quote]

But isn't part of the fun of being a noob finding these things out for yourself?   I lurked for only a few minutes and I realized that shit... and I found it all very funny.   I don't understand all the anger. 

where's anger?  i'm not angry.  i love bishop.  true, i've called him a few ugly names.  but it's all love.  "love bishop" was actually one of my new years resolutions.  it might be "tough love", but love nonetheless.

does this post really come off as angry?  that wasn't my intention.

i agree with what you've said, btw.  i too had fun discovering bishop, in spite of practically every other one of my bishop rebuttals being flamed with "ignore him, he's a troll".  but it's not a good argument for ignorance (though that may be an unfair characterization of your post).  either way, extra knowledge is never a bad thing.  if you know what you like, it should be a simple matter to choose not to read this thread.  after my recent edit to the original post, there is enough info to figure out the purpose of it, before getting to the specific points.

i should also point out this fundamental principle: it doesn't matter if bishop is a troll.  nobody who survives past about 100 posts actually believes they are going to change anyone's mind.  or if they ever did believe that, they quickly come around.  the only people who last past 100 are just here to debate for the sake of debate.  and in that case it doesn't matter what anyone *actually* believes, only the position(s) they take.

just look at devito.  at worst, he doesn't have anything better to do but appear clever, nitpick semantics, and argue against his own convictions.  at best, he is shrewdly and admirably keeping his mind sharp.  (probably somewhere in the middle but either way, his brain wins, and i for one could learn something from it.)

and actually, bishop isn't technically a "troll" anyway.  he doesn't stir up arbitrary conflict for juvenile self-indulgent kicks.  he methodically argues a very narrow, very disciplined, completely absurd, and "apparently" dogmatic view of the world.  he is rigorously self-disciplined in the way he relies on rowbotham and *only* rowbotham for his defense, his staunch refusal to concede a single flawed point no matter how trivial, and his inability to observe basic principles of sanity and reason.  it's pure genius, really.  (either that, or he's a fantastically, impossibly ignorant fundie jackass [in spite of claiming atheism].)

calling him a "troll" is inaccurate and unfairly dismissive of his accomplishments.

edit: fixed strikethrough over half the text

It's not this thread that comes off as angry, it's the combination of some of your threads/posts plus this one that makes you seem angry.    I'm glad that you aren't angry,  having fun debating is the whole point,  I think. 

I enjoyed the thread where you posted about actually doing the experiments.  I wonder how many here have done anything similar. 

I don't think of Tom Bishop as a troll either,  really.  He reminds me of what you might've been up against several hundred years ago trying to prove the Earth is round.  Not that I believe that he believes that the Earth is flat.. that's probably all part of the game. 

How does your conception of Tom Bishop account for his breadth of knowledge? As I mentioned, he's well read - we're talking hundreds of hours of reading on the FET, why would a globularist do that just in order to pretend?

Well for starters, DP, he could insane.

How does your conception of Tom Bishop account for his breadth of knowledge? As I mentioned, he's well read - we're talking hundreds of hours of reading on the FET, why would a globularist do that just in order to pretend?

1. The majority of his stuff is just copy-paste from internet sources and his other posts. He doesn't have to read for "hundreds of hours"; Ctrl-C-Ctrl-V will do it.

2. For the lulz.

It's not this thread that comes off as angry, it's the combination of some of your threads/posts plus this one that makes you seem angry.    I'm glad that you aren't angry,  having fun debating is the whole point,  I think. 

I enjoyed the thread where you posted about actually doing the experiments.  I wonder how many here have done anything similar. 

I don't think of Tom Bishop as a troll either,  really.  He reminds me of what you might've been up against several hundred years ago trying to prove the Earth is round.  Not that I believe that he believes that the Earth is flat.. that's probably all part of the game. 

that's fair.  i do have some anger issues, and many times i've been seriously and unconstructively angry on this site.  but i'm not just an irredeemable hothead - i'm aware of the problem, i'm working on it, i am open-minded with solutions which i actively seek and research, i always accomplish the objectives i set, and i am making trackable progress...this forum is actually helping me in some small ways in real life.  i don't even get upset over posts anymore (yeah i still make a few mean posts but they no longer physically/emotionally affect me).

i am currently striving to just ignore the riff-raff that come here to just spew hate and contribute nothing, which i have a natural tendency to zero in on, and deputize myself as the [utterly illogical] police/executioner of and shut them down [a logical impossibility].  it's a personality trait i inherited or learned from my father, that goes all the way back to grade-school - where even against my better judgment, i would "police" and beat up any and all blatantly witnessed bullying.  (not always successfully of course and with much time in the principal's office.)  while it arguably worked slightly more often than not in grade school, it doesn't work on the internet.  fighting fire with fire results in a self-perpetuating cycle of mindless, anonymous bile-spewing.  which is just stupid by both parties.  nobody likes it, least of all myself.  it's like fighting terrorism with terrorism.  logically, i understand that.

once i reach that zen level of "ignore" - and i will - i'll have run out of reasons to visit this site (to the delight of a several members i'm sure).

anyway enough about me.  i agree with everything you said.

How does your conception of Tom Bishop account for his breadth of knowledge? As I mentioned, he's well read - we're talking hundreds of hours of reading on the FET, why would a globularist do that just in order to pretend?

i think both agent and jackascii said it best.  but as a tertiary and surely less likely argument, it is conceivable that bishop is just a brilliant man purposely and diligently forestalling the effects of aging, by diving whole-hog into a completely contrarian belief system, and exercising incredibly consistent and admirable self-discipline in his "defense" of it.  (this of course assumes he is in reality as old or older than his avatar.)

i always accomplish the objectives i set, and i am making trackable progress...this forum is actually helping me in some small ways in real life.  i don't even get upset over posts anymore (yeah i still make a few mean posts but they no longer physically/emotionally affect me).

(and also to leave this godforsaken forum like i promised on the first day of my second coming.)

Game. Set. Match.

Classic troll behavior. It's almost cute.

to save further pointless flaming and cross-flaming going on:

the point of these two posts (lies and forfeits) was to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion that bishop is sincere.  yes, i know he is a troll.  the very point is that it stretches the limits of reason to think that someone could tell so many blatant and easily called falsehoods, and be proven wrong and just run away from so many topics (over and over), and *not* be a troll.

but we all know that, so what?

there is a bit of context missing in both of these posts, that seems to have caused a depressing amount of "controversy".  and that is, these posts were put together for the complete noob.  my intention was to create these posts merely as landing spots for links in a new sig.  i did not even think they would be visited by regulars.  unfortunately the sig has a severely limited length, and while trying to whittle it down, i had to remove any non-critical text, such as "for benefit of the noob: ".  i.e., noobs bothering to engage bishop for reasons other than mere entertainment value, should read these posts, and save themselves (and all of us) much headache.

in other words, these posts were intended as a fe community service.  see, i don't just mindlessly attack others.  i try to contribute.  and this is the thanks i get?  where is the love?

i will edit both original posts to make my intended purpose more clear.

And again, you are parroting ad infinitum what most of us know already. Get a fucking purpose.

The first thing a troll does, is claim to be Badass. The second thing is becoming the victim. The third is becoming Batman. Your cape has holes in it.

So for competing theories, we have, with regard to frivolous complexity:

i think both agent and jackascii said it best.  but as a tertiary and surely less likely argument, it is conceivable that bishop is just a brilliant man purposely and diligently forestalling the effects of aging, by diving whole-hog into a completely contrarian belief system, and exercising incredibly consistent and admirable self-discipline in his "defense" of it.  (this of course assumes he is in reality as old or older than his avatar.)

He thinks the Earth is Flat.

And I so often hear from globularists how a worldwide Conspiracy is far too complex to be true!


Anyway, here's another take - what distinguishes Tom from other "true Zetetics" on this site (Myself, Chaltier, Dionysios, Raa, etc., etc.,) in such a way that you suspect he is insincere?

So for competing theories, we have, with regard to frivolous complexity:

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on January 02, 2008, 01:36:44 PM

i think both agent and jackascii said it best.  but as a tertiary and surely less likely argument, it is conceivable that bishop is just a brilliant man purposely and diligently forestalling the effects of aging, by diving whole-hog into a completely contrarian belief system, and exercising incredibly consistent and admirable self-discipline in his "defense" of it.  (this of course assumes he is in reality as old or older than his avatar.)

Quote

He thinks the Earth is Flat.

And I so often hear from globularists how a worldwide Conspiracy is far too complex to be true!


Anyway, here's another take - what distinguishes Tom from other "true Zetetics" on this site (Myself, Chaltier, Dionysios, Raa, etc., etc.,) in such a way that you suspect he is insincere?

Well you admitted you don't believe the Earth is flat. Raa decided the mods should be C.U.M.s  Dionysios was an obvious troll and everything was a joke. I don't know Chaltier.

So Tom has never shown that he doesn't believe it. That is what separates him.

Though I still believe Tom is a troll. He shows all the behavior.

Well you admitted you don't believe the Earth is flat.

When was this? I've always maintained that the Earth is flat.

Raa decided the mods should be C.U.M.s 

What does that mean?

Dionysios was an obvious troll and everything was a joke.

I'm actually in sporadic contact with him outside the forum, and I can assure you that this is not the case.

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 02, 2008, 06:00:58 PM

Well you admitted you don't believe the Earth is flat.

When was this? I've always maintained that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 02, 2008, 06:00:58 PM

Raa decided the mods should be C.U.M.s 

What does that mean?

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 02, 2008, 06:00:58 PM

Dionysios was an obvious troll and everything was a joke.

I'm actually in sporadic contact with him outside the forum, and I can assure you that this is not the case.

Raa decided the mods should be called Circular Universe Mods, as to the rest, as you wish.

So you honestly believe that nobody on this website truly is a Flat Earther, even those who freely confess it?

I don't understand why you and others before you have such trouble believing that people could actually hold a different view on the shape of the Earth. Parallax himself, when lecturing, was accused of the same insincerity - calling bull on FEers isn't a new phenomenon.

So you honestly believe that nobody on this website truly is a Flat Earther, even those who freely confess it?

I don't understand why you and others before you have such trouble believing that people could actually hold a different view on the shape of the Earth. Parallax himself, when lecturing, was accused of the same insincerity - calling bull on FEers isn't a new phenomenon.

No it is not close to that. You are not risking your public reputation or career. Some may have been truthful but i doubt it. There are no FE'ers on this website.

No it is not close to that. You are not risking your public reputation or career. Some may have been truthful but i doubt it. There are no FE'ers on this website.

What do we have to gain by telling you the Earth is flat?

(This question should sound familiar. It's asked a hell of a lot on this forum with only one word changed.)

Unlike the RE Conspiracy, which has a fiscal motive, what does your FE Conspiracy have driving it? Why would we bother with all this if we thought the Earth was a sphere?