The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: tigertatzen

youre feeding trolls with those cryptic comments, just to let you know :/

this is how it looks like, and its not good for any of us to do this... :/
s33.postimg.org...

and i cant really believe it was an accident since it happened twice in a row, its just not possible. so i would advice you to not post like that cause well, it hurts the thread and diminishes your other valid and intelligent comments.
its just a heads up and a friendly warning, i dont mean to pick on you at all. just saying its not very wise. < 3

No, you're right. It is bad form to stoop to their level. It also encourages them. Thank you for reminding me. I needed that.

ETA: Those two posts weren't me being cryptic. It happened again that both replies disappeared after they were posted, leaving only the quote. And I cannot edit them to fix it...it won't show my edits either. And they were both replies to you, interestingly enough.

a reply to: tigertatzen

What physical evidence do you have? Hint: Memories are not physical evidence.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: tigertatzen

One, they are reacting to their own fear and discomfort over the issue and are just in extreme denial and thus lashing out at others or two, they are deliberately pushing buttons and baiting us to gauge our reaction or three, they are actively trying to get any conversation about this and possibly related subject matter closed down.

Four, because it's safe and easy to get their debunker kick, plus it is an ongoing subject, so a constant feeding source.

This seems the most likely one.

I don't have the feeling that the ME thing is trying to be covered up.

I guess that's just going to be one of those things that I cannot understand, then. The allure. I can think of so many better things to do with spare time than lurk behind a computer screen, prowling for victims. It just baffles me.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

The Arctic has no land mass there so no Arctica currently, but guess what...There USED to be. Just not in recent history.

a reply to: tigertatzen

So now you're a victim? Would the ME group fall under SJW protection?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

What physical evidence do you have? Hint: Memories are not physical evidence.

Neither are opinions. Keep that in mind.

There have been many examples of physical evidence posted on this thread. If you look, you'll find them. And I'm sure it won't be long before more surfaces. Too many people are noticing the changes and actively pursuing the answers.

a reply to: tigertatzen

No there hasn't. You are confused.

Posting an image or link to something and then saying "this has changed" is not physical evidence. It's taking something physical and attaching it to a false memory. It's using a logical fallacy to support another logical fallacy.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I remember you having the same "thing" happening on another comment, few days ago. It was also a reply to me.
That is fu**ing scary man.
Really.

edit:
what does ETA mean? I always thought it was something entirely different, and never seen it used the way you use it, so im curious as to what it means.

a reply to: alienDNA

ETA means estimated time of arrival. I am also not familiar with that usage but I've been assuming it means "Edit to Add" which I find perfectly acceptable as it seems to make sense.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

a reply to: tigertatzen

I think you grievously missed the point...

why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica"

There is NOT a continent in the Arctic. Hence why there is no Arctica.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

So now you're a victim? Would the ME group fall under SJW protection?

I have never once said anything about being a victim. And I have no clue what "SJW protection" means. Protection from what? I was not aware we were in any kind of danger.

my 2 cents for this whole thread.....ignorant people write stuff too...

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

ETA: Did someone say otherwise? What else would ETA mean? Am I missing something?

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

ETA: Someone asked what it meant on the last page.

a reply to: raymundoko

Edit to add? never heard that before. Thanks! I was wondering why she kept saying theres an ETA, but using it as it would mean "Edit". Got me seriously confused.
so thanks.

a reply to: tigertatzen

ETA in any other context means something entirely different. And since ive never seen ETA used in any other context - I was confused with the way you were using it. Since Ive never seen anyone using ETA for an "edit" before.
But its sorted now.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

You can't have a continent of ice. The definition of a continent is land.

And my point about millions to billions of years ago is related to Pangea.

a reply to: tigertatzen

There was always lots of Ice on the north pole - but in high temperature summers, even grass and flowers would grow there.
And at winter time, it would resume being ice.
It wasnt a continent and never was.
However there are big chunks of ice floating there, HUGE ones, that might be what you remember as continent.
But since I obviously come from a different timeline than you, I guess you would have other memories of the north pole.
So I suppose theres no proof of anything.... except of course the proof in our current reality/timeline. Which is what you get when googling North Pole. I understand how that is not proof enough though.