A revolution in thought - Page 846

peacegirl · #**21126** 11-02-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well what I don't get is she made that bet even though I had already provided the links, which led to this discussion.

Does she not know what links are or how they work?

Anyway, I don't need 100.00, please donate it to the Thanksgiving campaign at No Kid Hungry <---this is a link. You click it, and it takes you to the website mentioned

Thanks for the link. It's so sad that children are going hungry as we speak.

peacegirl · #**21127** 11-02-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are any number of things you can't account for when speaking about something like conscience, which is individually developed in each person. Especially when discussing over 6 billion individual people with their own versions of conscience.

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings, and if that is the case, changes in the environment which this law of our nature produces, will cause a major change in what our conscience will permit.

You do not understand it either. You merely believe it. Without being able to explain adequately why you believe it.

I understand it very well. The reason you say I can't explain it is because no matter how I do explain it, you tell me it's unsupported and there's no evidence, so again we're stuck and can't move forward.

peacegirl · #**21128** 11-02-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is a face other than a pattern? What other cues might they be responding to?

That's why I said I don't know if that's true because pigeons cannot recognize individual people by sight alone. Neither can dogs. Seeing an animal at a distance that could be a threat does not require recognition of individuals in that species.

peacegirl · #**21129** 11-02-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Obviously they are just recognising the combinations of things like eyes, mouths, hairlines, ears... But they don't see a face!

No, because recognition at that level requires words to distinguish one set features from another.

LadyShea · #**21130** 11-02-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well what I don't get is she made that bet even though I had already provided the links, which led to this discussion.

Does she not know what links are or how they work?

Anyway, I don't need 100.00, please donate it to the Thanksgiving campaign at No Kid Hungry <---this is a link. You click it, and it takes you to the website mentioned

Thanks for the link. It's so sad that children are going hungry as we speak.

Are you going to donate the 100.00 you bet to it then?

LadyShea · #**21131** 11-02-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are any number of things you can't account for when speaking about something like conscience, which is individually developed in each person. Especially when discussing over 6 billion individual people with their own versions of conscience.

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings, and if that is the case, changes in the environment which this law of our nature produces, will cause a major change in what our conscience will permit.

You do not understand it either. You merely believe it. Without being able to explain adequately why you believe it.

I understand it very well. The reason you say I can't explain it is because no matter how I do explain it, you tell me it's unsupported and there's no evidence, so again we're stuck and can't move forward.

Because every time you try to explain it you merely assert that it is true and never do provide any support or evidence that it is true. The statement "conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings" is an assertion, a claim, an extraordinary claim as it happens. That's a downright ballsy big ass claim. So, you need extraordinary ballsy big ass evidence to support that big ass claim.

You're stuck because you can't provide any support for it at all, let alone ballsy huge support.

peacegirl · #**21132** 11-02-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

There is no MY addition Vivisectus. The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image. I don't have to use Lessans' words to express myself and be correct. If you want Lessans to explain to you in his own words, why not buy the book? This is not a meal ticket for me. This is to share knowledge that will change the world for the better.

Again, that was Shea.

Quote:

The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image.

What the hell? Are you on something?

Quote:

I used Lessans' words Vivisectus. The only difference is the senses are receiving and transmitting external stimuli to the brain. He did not believe that light has the same properties as other external stimuli because patterns don't travel through space and time, so how can light work like the other senses? How can we interpret an image if there is no pattern to be interpreted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Eh? That wasn't me that was Shea.

You all sound alike, so it's very easy to make that mistake.

It is called a quote system. It is not hard to use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Though I would like to point out he did say nothing striked the retina. You just clumsily edited in a few words to make it seem like he didn't. How else do you explain the fact that earlier versions of the text do not contain the words "Except for light"?

Quote:

He did not mention the word "retina"; Earlier version do contain "except for light". Look it up again. I'm not a liar Vivisectus, and I'm not trying to change the text as you believe.

Sure looks like you did. So there are different version of the holy texts huh? And between then and now you found one that included the words "exceot for light" even though it makes the sentence all mixed up?

You are correct, he used to word optic nerve in stead. He seems to have unaware of the existence of the retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Just read what I actually wrote and it will make sense.

I did, and it still makes no sense.

Well we have all seen your reading comprehension skills in action. I will try to make it simpler for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

First the sentence read "because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell."

You then added in "except light"... but that means that there is now nothing differentiating the eyes from the other senses!

Yes there is. Light is not the same thing because it's bringing no stimuli from the external world. You still don't get it, do you?

But that was not how the original sentence ran. That was at least internally consistent, if factually inaccurate. The addition "except for light" makes the sentence completely nonsensical, as in the normal theory of sight light is the stimulus!

When you include the "except for light" part, the whole sentence becomes awkward and unclear, which suggests it was added on to the sentence later.

He wrote this, I did not...

But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This makes the sentence seem awkward, almost self-contradictory. It is like saying "Nothing other than water made me wet".

Nothing other than water made me wet is not comparable to nothing but light striked my optic nerve. You are not going to get away with this joke of an analogy.

It rather does: as I already pointed out, light is the stimulus in the normal theory of sight, so the addition of those words turns that sentence in a strange re-phrasing of the normal theory.

But you're forgetting that even if light strikes the optic nerve, how can there be a pattern if the pattern does not bounce off an object and travel through space/time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It was obviously a later edit, as Shea found earlier versions of the text where it was not yet added in, so it must have been done by you in response to someone pointing out what a blunder it was. This is further supported by the fact that the addition makes the sentence nonsensical.

Quote:

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That will help me to get this book printed, which is sorely needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermmm... you do know I could be a jerk and swindle you out of a 100 bucks right now? All I have to do is say "where is says other than light". That is where it was added in, if it was added in. Good grief you are so simple. No wonder you got swindled out of your life-savings already, getting a book printed that you need to charge 40 dollars for just to break even!

It was not added in, as if to say the book was altered. Where did I get swindled out of my life savings? I put money into the book because I had to resubmit it, but I was not swindled, nor do I have any control over what the publisher charges. Did you forget already that I only make $2.00 off of each book? I could make $5.00 or even $10.00 depending on whether the book is bought through a reseller, the actual publisher, or by me. It will take a long time for me to make my money back, but who cares if this knowledge prevents war, crime, and hatred? That's an okay trade-off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you want to be shown when it was added in, then the latest source of the version without it that I am aware of is 2006, I think. So it must have been after that. Ask Shea, she found it.

I don't know what you are talking about Vivisectus. You think you found some big secret, and there is no secret. I'm an open book.

Quote:

I saw, and it was nothing but conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That should not be a problem for you! You accept that conscience works as the book described on no evidence, why not this?

This thread is getting nowhere fast. If you don't read the book, you won't know why he does give evidence but not the kind you demand. It's really sad that your nose is so up in the air that you won't even consider reading the book. You already know he's wrong. You don't even have a humble bone in your body that says maybe I don't know everything. Let me check this out more carefully. Do you actually think this thread proves him wrong? It's a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Although I suggest you have another look at the sentence you just wrote

Quote:

I just did, and it was exactly what I intended to write.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? Well I did just mention your fabled reading comprehension skills. Let ius break it down into it's component parts and see what that brings us.

her hypothesis what shea said

will be proven to be speaks for itself I think?

as biased and factually inaccurate So, equally biased and factually inaccurate

as the very writing she's trying to condemn. which of course is the book.

So you said: what LS said will be proven to be equally biased and factually inaccurate as the book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I meant. Her hypothesis that this book was altered by me is just as false as her other false conclusions regarding tautologies, modal fallacies, and the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or did you mean that both the book and LS's condemnation of the book are factually accurate and not biased? Surely they cannot both be accurate?

Did I clear things up for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because you just called your father's writing biased and factually inaccurate. :giggle:

I did not call my father's writing biased. I called LadyShea's review biased and inaccurate. How can you compare the two and tell me that I just called my father's writing biased? You're all confused Vivisectus.

You rather did. You said "Her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased as the writing she is trying to condemn.

English may only be my second language, but I can read it you know.

Well, maybe it came out wrong in the sentence. I can admit to that. I explained what I meant above. So stop harping on my small mistakes that have nothing to do with the validy of this discovery. Look at the big picture. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, what is factually inaccurate about what Shea said exactly?

You don't even know after accusing me of being biased because you thought LadyShea was perfect in her analysis, and now asking me what was factually inaccurate? Do you even know what you're saying Vivisectus? Sometimes I think you're talking in your sleep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which facts were inaccurate?

The fact that I added things in the book that Lessans didn't even know about. That's nuts and it's very offensive that someone would accuse me of something so despicable.

LadyShea · #**21133** 11-02-2012, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Obviously they are just recognising the combinations of things like eyes, mouths, hairlines, ears... But they don't see a face!

No, because recognition at that level requires words to distinguish one set features from another.

Another assertion. Do you have evidence to support that claim?

LadyShea · #**21134** 11-02-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which facts were inaccurate?

The fact that I added things in the book that Lessans didn't even know about. That's nuts and it's very offensive that someone would accuse me of something so despicable.

You added the words "other than light", which changed the whole meaning of the sentence, as I've proven several times, the last time being one page back Click here for the post

peacegirl · #**21135** 11-02-2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are any number of things you can't account for when speaking about something like conscience, which is individually developed in each person. Especially when discussing over 6 billion individual people with their own versions of conscience.

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings, and if that is the case, changes in the environment which this law of our nature produces, will cause a major change in what our conscience will permit.

You do not understand it either. You merely believe it. Without being able to explain adequately why you believe it.

I understand it very well. The reason you say I can't explain it is because no matter how I do explain it, you tell me it's unsupported and there's no evidence, so again we're stuck and can't move forward.

Because every time you try to explain it you merely assert that it is true and never do provide any support or evidence that it is true. The statement "conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings" is an assertion, a claim, an extraordinary claim as it happens. That's a downright ballsy big ass claim. So, you need extraordinary ballsy big ass evidence to support that big ass claim.

You're stuck because you can't provide any support for it at all, let alone ballsy huge support.

It is not an extraordinary claim, or a ballsy ass claim. This is a claim based on careful, astute observation. You refuse to look at the bigger picture. You're right, you can't take one sample and extract a generality, but that's not what he did. It's you that can't see the forest from the trees, which is why you believe there is no common demoninator in all human beings.

They have even done studies on very young children which bears this out. One large study was done years ago (I wish I could get hold of it to prove to you I'm not making this up) where the experimenter slapped a doll with a raised voice while she was giving it a bath and the two year old that was watching got very upset. Their conclusion was that the child had a conscience and knew intuitively that what the experimenter was doing was wrong. This experiment can be duplicated, so stop telling me that there isn't any evidence, or any evidence that can be used to support his observations.

LadyShea · #**21136** 11-02-2012, 09:09 PM

Claiming anything having to do with psychology is true across the entire human race is a big ass claim. Claiming that something as complex and subjective as conscience is "predictable" across the entire human race is ballsy.

The study you are referring to dealt with a rudimentary idea of fairness and empathy....that is not the entirety of conscience! And anyway, why didn't you look it up and link to it the 50 times we've asked you to support the claim?

Dragar · #**21137** 11-02-2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Obviously they are just recognising the combinations of things like eyes, mouths, hairlines, ears... But they don't see a face!

No, because recognition at that level requires words to distinguish one set features from another.

But peacegirl, are you sure they see eyes? Maybe they see eyelids, eyelashes, pupils, irises - but they don't see eyes because at that level, you need words.

But wait! I bet they can't see eyelashes either! They can probably see the top of an eyelash and the bottom of an eyelash, and maybe the middle of an eyelash. But in order to see a whole eyelash, you need words!

But wait, I bet they can't see the top of an eyelash either!

...

Therefore, all animals except humans are blind.

Vivisectus · #**21138** 11-02-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are any number of things you can't account for when speaking about something like conscience, which is individually developed in each person. Especially when discussing over 6 billion individual people with their own versions of conscience.

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings, and if that is the case, changes in the environment which this law of our nature produces, will cause a major change in what our conscience will permit.

You do not understand it either. You merely believe it. Without being able to explain adequately why you believe it.

I understand it very well. The reason you say I can't explain it is because no matter how I do explain it, you tell me it's unsupported and there's no evidence, so again we're stuck and can't move forward.

No, if you remember correctly (or simply read back!) you will find that my perennial complaint is that you merely repeat the claims, but never support these claims. You endlessly repeat what it is you believe, but never explain why you believe it. I strongly suspect this is because the only reason you believe it is because Seymour said it was so.

The book does in no way support or even make a case for conscience working as described. It merely claims that it does.

And yet the rest of the book goes on as if this has been established beyond any reasonable doubt!

So when it was promised in the beginning of the book that it would take the reader step by undeniable step, each one as clear and undeniable as basic arithmetic, was that a lie, an oversight, or is there any way to check if conscience works that way?

Another question: I am quite sure I am not the first person to point this out to you. I know Spacemonkey did. You yourself have admitted it must just be accepted... if you desire to accept the rest of the book.

Problem is, before we want to accept the rest of the book, we need to know the book is right.

Accepting the book does not make the book correct. If it did, then you could indeed say "But believing it will bring world peace!" But in order to think that, you need to first establish that the book is right... and that is what we are investigating!

So far, we have established that for the advocated system of the book to work, conscience has to work as the book describes it does. However, we have found no reason to assume it does. Again - please feel free to point any out if I have missed it!

LadyShea · #**21139** 11-02-2012, 09:20 PM

patterns without words are not seen!

LadyShea · #**21140** 11-02-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which facts were inaccurate?

The fact that I added things in the book that Lessans didn't even know about. That's nuts and it's very offensive that someone would accuse me of something so despicable.

You added the words "other than light", which changed the whole meaning of the sentence, as I've proven several times, the last time being one page back Click here for the post

Is it my imagination or is she pretending like this never happened?

You lost 100.00 peacegirl, pay up.

Vivisectus · #**21141** 11-02-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

It is not an extraordinary claim, or a ballsy ass claim. This is a claim based on careful, astute observation. You refuse to look at the bigger picture. You're right, you can't take one sample and extract a generality, but that's not what he did. It's you that can't see the forest from the trees, which is why you believe there is no common demoninator in all human beings.

They have even done studies on very young children which bears this out. One large study was done years ago (I wish I could get hold of it to prove to you I'm not making this up) where the experimenter slapped a doll with a raised voice while she was giving it a bath and the two year old that was watching got very upset. Their conclusion was that the child had a conscience and knew intuitively that what the experimenter was doing was wrong. This experiment can be duplicated, so stop telling me that there isn't any evidence, or any evidence that can be used to support his observations.

All that actually proves is that social animals, when they see something abused that looks like them, get upset. This is well-established. The more like them the something is, the more upset they get. The more difference there is, the less.

It does not support the idea that conscience would work perfectly if everyone realized will is not free and they knew they would never be blamed. That would be a pretty big leap, don't you think?

Vivisectus · #**21142** 11-02-2012, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

patterns without words are not seen!

Good point - so Seymour could not see the "patterns in human behaviour"... because we have not named them yet!

Question though - how did we ever see the stars?

We have no contact with them bar visual contact. We could not have imagined them first, made up a word for them so we would have something to project, and then "projected words unto a screen of undeniable essence", a phrase which I feel has never been sufficiently explained.

So are there two kinds of sight? One where we project words, and one where we just see what is there?

In order to project anything, we must already know what is there, else we cannot know how to project the correct thing. But this seeing that is required first must be an afferent process: information that is not in the brain ends up appearing in the brain, albeit by a completely unknown process.

Spacemonkey · #**21143** 11-02-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, every single question you have is answered clearly in the book.

Prove it. Quote me an answer from the book to each of my questions. I bet you can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have strong grounds for knowing, not believing, that without justification (and you need to understand that there are a lot of ways conscience can rationalize in a free will environment), man cannot move in the direction of hurting others as a preferable choice.

What are these 'strong grounds' you speak of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am offering rational support.

Where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's your turn to listen for a change, instead of condemn me before all the facts are in.

I'm listening. Show me these answers and strong grounds you speak of.

Bump.

What happened here, Peacegirl? Were you just talking out your butt yet again? Where are these answers and strong grounds? You said you wanted me to listen for a change? So why is it that you have nothing to say?

What happened here, Peacegirl? Why did you evade all my questions by claiming they are all answered somewhere in his book, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you claim to have strong grounds for your beliefs but then refuse to tell me what those grounds are? Why did you claim to be offering rational support, but then refuse to show me where? Why did you demand that I listen to you for a change, and then stop replying to me? Why is it that whenever I ask you a question, you just evade and refuse to answer?

Spacemonkey · #**21144** 11-02-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They would have to be severely mentally ill for their conscience not to control their behavior under these conditions.

Can you support this claim? With anything at all? Or is this just another thing you are asking us to take on faith because your daddy said so?

Where is your or Lessans' support for this claim? Do you not realize that his entire first non-discovery rests upon this so far completely unsupported claim which no-one but you seems to find even remotely plausible? Why did Lessans not bother to support this absolutely critical premise of his work? Don't you find this oversight at all problematic? Isn't it something that a man of Lessans' supposed genius and insight should have anticipated? Or did he really think that merely claiming conscience works exactly as he said would be enough to convince people?

LadyShea · #**21145** 11-02-2012, 11:03 PM

Oh man, this absence after completely ignoring the main discussion today makes me think she is off resetting her memory banks, and we will get a fresh and clean peacegirl parrot to start all over with tomorrow.

LadyShea · #**21146** 11-02-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That money would come in handy in helping me to get this book printed.

Several pages ago I linked to the two passages you quoted that did not contain the words "other than light". One was from 2003 and the other from 2006.

Here is the link to the post you made in 2006
Here is the passage as you pasted it then

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2006

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Here it is from 2003. You'll see here it is stated that nothing impinges on the optic nerve and the words "other than light" do not appear at all. He also restates that the main difference between the eyes and other senses are that there is nothing external striking the nerve endings in the eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2003

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.”

So do I get the $100?

Vivisectus · #**21147** 11-02-2012, 11:27 PM

ANother thing occurs. He says:

Quote:

I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ.

How did he prove the eye is not a sense organ? As far as I can tell he merely claimed it. If he proved it... where is this proof?

Or was he just talking out of his hat?

thedoc · #**21148** 11-02-2012, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

so again we're stuck and can't move forward.

There is no 'we', you are the only one who is stuck and refuses to go on.

thedoc · #**21149** 11-03-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One large study was done years ago where the experimenter slapped a doll with a raised voice while she was giving it a bath and the two year old that was watching got very upset. Their conclusion was that the child had a conscience and knew intuitively that what the experimenter was doing was wrong. This experiment can be duplicated, so stop telling me that there isn't any evidence, or any evidence that can be used to support his observations.

Give us a link to the study, or the conclusion is just a false statement on your part, of the real conclusions by the researchers. Years ago I had 2 dogs and if I scolded one dog for some behaviour the other learned the same lesson, this proves nothing about conscience, but only about the fear of punishment, which is the current system, that works. Lessans claims about conscience, has no proof in his book or in the real world.

peacegirl · #**21150** 11-03-2012, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well what I don't get is she made that bet even though I had already provided the links, which led to this discussion.

Does she not know what links are or how they work?

Anyway, I don't need 100.00, please donate it to the Thanksgiving campaign at No Kid Hungry <---this is a link. You click it, and it takes you to the website mentioned

Thanks for the link. It's so sad that children are going hungry as we speak.

Are you going to donate the 100.00 you bet to it then?

I'd like to give something. I have certain charities I already give to, one is Mother's Against Drunk Drivers, and the Special Olympics. There's so many needy people. That's why I want this knowledge to be brought to light so people won't have to suffer this way anymore.