-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
Then what is it a matter of? I still fail to understand your position. Do you or do you not want a statement about the near-spherical shape of the Earth to be qualified as "just one point of view" on Wikipedia?
Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and every statement is probabilistic. The near sphericity of the earth is a POV with a very high probability of truth. If all Wikipedians (and we are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a consensus Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if no-one is disputing the shape?
I think you might run foul of both the Flat Earth Society and the Systematic Bias folks for those statements :)
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \