What calumny?

He's invited to defend his position.  I've seen his call-in show garner what, 12, 15, I don't know, 20 youtubers?  Why not show up for a lot more Catholics on CI?  But then, maybe he realizes he ought not.  After all, he's got a couple friends doing the heavy lifting.

No need to play dumb and add your silly emoji.  You and I know exactly what calumny I speak of. 

I don't understand why you keep saying that forum members should contact Sungenis outside of the forum. This is a forum, so we communicate by posting or sending PM's. That's how it works here.

Now, you are doubling down. The ongoing repetition of it and the sick substance of it was calumny, plain and simple.  Now you are trying to wiggle out of it with some fast sleight of hand, trying to turn the tables on me as if I am calumniating you.  I am calling you out gladius.

Now go ahead, say what you want if you wish to.  I hope this is the end of it. 

No, he's just pointing out that you don't know the meaning of the word calumny.

Augustine and the Shape of the Earth: A Critique of Leo Ferrari

One of the guiding concerns of Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis was to avoid confrontation between the literal sense of Scripture and the knowledge of the natural world that had been attained by the philosophers. This explains his repeated assertion that quarrels over details only detract the Christian reader from the essential aim of biblical lecture, namely his personal salvation.
In this context, his neutral presentation of the spherical model as “hypothetical” is best understood as part of his effort to liberate the exegesis of Genesis from the strictures imposed by the need to reconcile it with any particular cosmological theory. At the same time, however, his discussions of the natural world clearly reflect his classical or “pagan” education, for which reason it is no surprise that some of his remarks presuppose the spherical conception of heaven and earth. Ferrari is certainly correct in insisting that Augustine does not go out of his way to defend this picture. But neither is he able to show conclusively that Augustine committed himself to any other cosmological model. The important point to make is that Augustine’s works were written for purposes other than furthering insight into the structure of the natural world.
Any attempt to construct a single unified “cosmography” from these works is thus open to serious criticism

By saying Augustine avoided confrontation between the literal sense of scripture and knowledge of the natural world (as if Augustine feared they were separate or in opposition) we can already tell Ferrari is not really getting to the truth.  Ferrari attempts to pit science and scripture against each other to distract from what Augustine is saying. Ferrari's "Augustine is waffling"  is already suspect since Augustine's work is called "The Literal Meaning of Genesis". 

Augustine tells us that scripture describes a flat earth.  If people open their eyes, scripture does it all over the place. Scripture never describes a ball earth. Never. And for those who pretend the original word orbis means globe, it doesn't mean globe, it means earth, terra, world or circle. The Holy Ghost uses the word compass in His description, something not possible on a global scale.  Google knows the true definition, even if they can't refrain from slipping their view in on the third definition below, saying earth is the third planet from the sun.