It may be common. However, It appears to me that he was just trying to educate you. You've admitted that you didn't read it, and are now making assumptions about his motivations rather than refuting the evidence. He's provided a lot of great information here and I'm thankful for it. I could provide you with an actual ebook on the topic. However, since you didn't bother reading his comment and referred to it as a book.. I doubt you'd read it. A documentary should be out in the next couple of days on the topic. I'll drop a link here when it's out, just in case you or anyone else wants to watch and learn. 🤝
Discussion
Actually I made a statement that refuted his comment and he did not reply to it but rather threw a bunch of unrelated info with a copy and paste from “research” that ignores basic geological knowledge. This is what you call a red herring. If he wanted an honest discussion he’d address my comment directly.
Strawman
I never admitted that I didn’t read it. I replied with a specific counterpoint that addresses a part of his reply. How you get “you admitted you didn’t read it and you won’t read this” is beyond me.
I guess I assumed you didn't read it based on this. "lol now you’re pasting a book at me… like I said localized flooding in contained geographic regions happens."
The only reason I can see for this, is either you didn't read it or your idea of "localized flooding" includes the majority of land on earth being inundated with water from every ocean. If you're thinking "Waterworld" where there is no land anymore, that's not what we're talking about.
This comment is full of erroneous interpretations with incorrect causalities. I do not want to spend time breaking it down. It’s up to you to be credulous and accept it at face value or question further. Over and out.