A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are the only one claiming to see that Lessans made a typo. You are now projecting your own views onto Ceptimus in an attempt to ease your own conscience.

Well, to be fair, she obviously means this:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It seems unlikely to me that Lessans calculated the amount and got a wrong answer that is only $9 away from the correct one. As you say, it's much more likely that he worked out the correct answer, or was told it by someone else, but then mistyped or misremembered it when typing out the manuscript.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Well, to be fair, she obviously means this:

I appreciate your defending me since it's so rare. But I want to make clear that this was not an answer that was given to him by someone else, nor was it misremembered. It was a keystroke that caused this error. 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard. He had a manual typewriter and it took a lot of dexterity to hit those keys, especially the numbered keys. It may have been that he did not write this out in his manuscript but just typed it. He didn't always use his manuscript first and then transcribe it. He wrote in his manuscript when he was out, but he typed when he was home.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You had forgotten why you were sending me the book. I was never going to review it and never offered to do so. I was going to provide a copy to my local university philosophy department library - something you agreed would be helpful and of value to you. What's changed to make you want to renege on your agreement? Actually, it may be a good thing as I don't know if I could in good faith donate the work of a admitted plagiarist.

You could still donate the book with a cover letter explaining all the problems that you are aware of in the publishing of the book. It would not excuse Lessans or Peacegirl, but it would make clear the conditions under which you are presenting them with the book, and you could ask if anyone would be willing to give an opinion of the concepts, with a full knowledge that there are other problems.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I want to make clear that this was not an answer that was given to him by someone else, nor was it misremembered. It was a keystroke that caused this error.

You don't know that. You BELIEVE it because you have FAITH in his mathematical abilities. This faith is NOT something supported by any kind of evidence. And your plagiarism is still plagiarism, whether this was a typo or not. You are still taking someone else's answer and inserting it as something Lessans provided when he didn't. You are lying to your readers - and doing so purely to hide yet another of your father's mistakes.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You could still donate the book with a cover letter explaining all the problems that you are aware of in the publishing of the book. It would not excuse Lessans or Peacegirl, but it would make clear the conditions under which you are presenting them with the book, and you could ask if anyone would be willing to give an opinion of the concepts, with a full knowledge that there are other problems.

That would be an awfully long letter.

[koan]

I'd just like to say that I am quite happy with not being credited or mentioned in this book in any way. I shudder to think anyone would take that as meaning I support the conclusions. Any changes peacegirl makes as a result of something I've said are granted without desired credit as, if she actually took my advice and contributions, she would not publish the book as non-fiction. My actual advice is to
a)Use his founding principles to start a new religion like Scientology where people have to pay for the info contained in each chapter one item at a time and hope you don't get sued for fraud
or
b)Create a sci-fi novel based on his founding principles
or
c)Use it as source material to write a book about a man who spent most of his adult life devoted to a delusion and the main protagonist is his daughter, trying to break free from his warped ideas.

I've considered writing c) myself but don't have the time. Option c) would make the most interesting book, imo

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by koan

I'd just like to say that I am quite happy with not being credited or mentioned in this book in any way.

Unless it's made clear exactly how I contributed, I'd rather not be mentioned either!

I also provided the answer to the 'Arrange the letters A-to-O puzzle' a few thousand posts back, and another one about cows eating grass. So if peacegirl decides to mention me at all, it should only be as a puzzle-answer-checker.

Oh and she already previously corrected one 'typo' based on my posts - I seem to remember it was something about sound taking longer to arrive from more distant objects when Lessans' original text had it backwards, but I forget the details - I'd have to check back through the thread.

If peacegirl ever gets around to properly addressing some of the other topics I've posted about (moons of Jupiter, stellar aberration, space probe guidance, camera optics, and so on) then I might be more willing to be credited. But I strongly doubt that she ever will address these topics in a meaningful way, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

ETA: I found my previous 'typo correction' post: Freethought Forum - View Post - A revolution in thought. Peacegirl thanked me for the correction and said she was modifying the text in the book a few posts later. And I remember now she made another correction to the book on her website when I pointed out that Lessans' name was spelt differently on the cover to the pages inside!

[Vivisectus]

it took a lot of dexterity to hit those keys, especially the numbered keys.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't know that. You BELIEVE it because you have FAITH in his mathematical abilities. This faith is NOT something supported by any kind of evidence. And your plagiarism is still plagiarism, whether this was a typo or not. You are still taking someone else's answer and inserting it as something Lessans provided when he didn't. You are lying to your readers - and doing so purely to hide yet another of your father's mistakes.

Oh my god, I can't believe the big deal you are making out of this. I refuse to play this sick game with you Spacemonkey. Goodbye.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I can't believe the big deal you are making out of this. I refuse to play this sick game with you Spacemonkey. Goodbye.

Stop plagiarizing and we'll stop calling you out on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Unless it's made clear exactly how I contributed, I'd rather not be mentioned either!

I also provided the answer to the 'Arrange the letters A-to-O puzzle' a few thousand posts back, and another one about cows eating grass. So if peacegirl decides to mention me at all, it should only be as a puzzle-answer-checker.

If I recall, his answer wasn't wrong.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

Oh and she already previously corrected one 'typo' based on my posts - I seem to remember it was something about sound taking longer to arrive from more distant objects when Lessans' original text had it backwards, but I forget the details - I'd have to check back through the thread.

Yes, and I thanked you for that. You all have become my unofficial proofreaders, but I don't have to mention every little correction someone helped me with. It's not like anyone made a major contribution to the main concept, which would be deserving of recognition. I just remember someone caught the word Satan spelled as Satin. My mistake. Do I have to credit him in the book too?

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

If peacegirl ever gets around to properly addressing some of the other topics I've posted about (moons of Jupiter, stellar aberration, space probe guidance, camera optics, and so on) then I might be more willing to be credited. But I strongly doubt that she ever will address these topics in a meaningful way, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

ETA: I found my previous 'typo correction' post: Freethought Forum - View Post - A revolution in thought. Peacegirl thanked me for the correction and said she was modifying the text in the book a few posts later. And I remember now she made another correction to the book on her website when I pointed out that Lessans' name was spelt differently on the cover to the pages inside!

That was because I was in a hurry to get the ebook online knowing that I would probably find quite a few errors. I was not wrong. I have since corrected them all. As I said, I appreciate the help, but I don't think the kind of help I received needs to be made mention of in the book. I'm sorry if others feel differently.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not like anyone made a major contribution to the main concept, which would be deserving of recognition.

It's not about recognition, Peacegirl. It's about HONESTY and integrity, and not lying to your readers. No-one is saying you're being unfair to Ceptimus. The problem is that what you are doing is dishonest and unfair to your readers. Lessans did not provide you with the correct answer to the problem, so if you are not prepared to honestly admit that in the book then you should not be using the example at all.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I mentioned this over a year ago, and never got a reply. It's worth bringing up again.

We have a blind spot in each eye. The standard model of sight explains exactly why this is so.

If Lessans' "model" of sight were correct, there should be no blind spot.

I'm betting that peacegirl can neither explain why Lessans' model predicts that we should not have blind spots, nor why we do have them.

So go on, peacegirl, demonstrate that Lessans' model of sight is superior. It should be a very simple thing to do: explain to us how Lessans' model accounts for the existence of the blind spot in each eye.

Go on, I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

Did you happen to miss this, peacegirl?

[koan]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not about recognition, Peacegirl. It's about HONESTY and integrity, and not lying to your readers. No-one is saying you're being unfair to Ceptimus. The problem is that what you are doing is dishonest and unfair to your readers. Lessans did not provide you with the correct answer to the problem, so if you are not prepared to honestly admit that in the book then you should not be using the example at all.

My lack of desire to be credited personally in this book, if I were to contribute to any changes, should not take away from this valid point that all forums which were used to correct and edit the book should be credited accurately for the function they performed. The credit should be very clear that the members of the listed forums contributed to the book by providing criticism and proofreading functions without which the book would contain more errors than it currently possesses.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That would be an awfully long letter.

Yes, but if they are going to read 500+ pages of Lessans drivel, surely they could manage a 400+ page letter that could only be easier to slog through. If you include some of Lessans better statments and the responses to them, those philosophers would dive into it just for some light reading. You should also include a fair warning to not read too much at one time, for fear of crossed eyes, headaches, and blindness.

[LadyShea]

Although peacegirl seems to either have left or is taking a break. I thought her responses here were very pertinent to some points being made throughout these threads. So I wanted to point out some things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not the judge of me LadyShea.

In this instance I was judging actions. I am the judge of actions. If those actions were written up without reference to the actor, I would judge these actions as wrong for anyone. For myself included. My conscience would not allow me to plagiarize. My conscience would not allow me to fail to acknowledge someone else's work.

This idea of evaluating scenarios blindly, without knowing who performed the actions (including not knowing if you yourself performed them), is a very good thought experiment and showed Lessans ideas about not blaming to be untenable. Spacemonkey proposed it and peacegirl weaseled of course.

So of course I am the judge. If I am to judge myself (to prevent myself doing harm) I must be able to view actions and words and judge them as right or wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one with ulterior motives.

Projection. What does "ulterior motives" have to do with anything I said?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not steal Ceptimus's answer. He willingly gave it to me because he could see that Lessans made a simple typo.
Just because he showed me the mistake doesn't mean I have to include his name in the book. That's nuts.

Acknowledging the source of a correction is not nuts. It's honest, respectful, and just all around a good practice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans explained how to go about arriving at the answer. He gave the numbers for the first two stores. It was simple arithematic after that.

Yet peacegirl was unable to do the arithmetic herself to arrive at the correct answer to put in the book, and relied on someone else to provide it, and now refuses to acknowledge that person in the corrected work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a habit of twisting things around to make it appear what it is not. That is your modus operandi.

I have not twisted anything. I stated the facts and my opinion of them. Others may agree or disagree with my opinion, but I have not misrepresented any fact that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems like you've taken on this thread as your pet project. You are committed to discrediting him any way you can, but it won't work because he's not wrong and your bashing me, or giving a poor review, will only create further interest when other people give good reviews. And believe me, there will be plenty of good reviews.

Thus peacegirl shares her fantasies of future vindication for Lessans and herself...again. If people read my commentary here, and disagree with my opinions as stated, then they disagree. So what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Liar.

Telling lies is known as lying, yes. People who lie are liars, yes. Don't like being called a liar, don't lie. Simple.

[

To refer back to the full discussion of this issue, search the thread for "Internet Checkers" and scroll back. Suffice to say peacegirl does not understand fair use.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It will be easy for people to confirm whether these quotes were authentic.

So why didn't peacegirl do this "easy" verification before printing it in the book? Nobody knows!

peacegirl displays her ignorance of what constitutes someone else's work. In this case the work was the initial research and compilation of quotes from various medical doctors. She simply copied the final product from a website and pasted it into the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These were the few things I changed, and you won't let me live it down. Don't give me anymore advice on the off chance that I may take it, or I'll be indebted to you forever.

They contributed nothing.

Here comes de judge! You are so off the mark, it's funny.

Not.

Yeah, just blanket denials of facts and histrionics. No need to explore further

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Did you happen to miss this, peacegirl?

It is not about prediction; it is about what is going on in reality. Is that not what we are aiming for? I can't come back with what you expect as a double-dog dare, but I would hope that you would not be so cold as to attack me without absolute proof that I am wrong, and you don't have that proof Lone. If the eyes are efferent, this would not change the fact that we have a blind spot. It would show up in the same exact way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

My lack of desire to be credited personally in this book, if I were to contribute to any changes, should not take away from this valid point that all forums which were used to correct and edit the book should be credited accurately for the function they performed. The credit should be very clear that the members of the listed forums contributed to the book by providing criticism and proofreading functions without which the book would contain more errors than it currently possesses.

I cannot even read what you have to say because you so positive in your "correctness" that you are using this as a given. Do you not see the problem with this? For those who see what goes on under the surface, kudos to you. But there are many who are not even capable of seeing this truth. I am depending on those who may be smart enough to see the problem here and are willing to admit that something smells foul. Without this understanding, no one will even want to rectify, or want to know what they may be doing that could be contributing to the situation, which taken on a large scale becomes astronomical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

My lack of desire to be credited personally in this book, if I were to contribute to any changes, should not take away from this valid point that all forums which were used to correct and edit the book should be credited accurately for the function they performed. The credit should be very clear that the members of the listed forums contributed to the book by providing criticism and proofreading functions without which the book would contain more errors than it currently possesses.

The changes that were made were negligible. You offered nothing at all to the concepts. Stop trying to exploit, which is exactly what you are doing.

I do not consider proofreading something that has to be noted in the book. I can thank people for their help (which I have done) in catching trivial typos and such, but I do not have to prostate myself in deference to these individuals to where they should now be regarded as co-authors. This is really sick, you know that?

[The Lone Ranger]

Do you seriously believe that you don't have a blind spot in each eye? There's a very simple test to demonstrate that you do, you know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you seriously believe that you don't have a blind spot in each eye? There's a very simple test to demonstrate that you do, you know.

I know we have a blind spot. That's not what I'm even arguing, and you know it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not about prediction; it is about what is going on in reality. There are no blind spots other than what you have created.

Now this is something else, Peacegirl claiming that there are no blind spots in the eye. Even I knew about that. I learned about the blind spots so long ago that I cant remember when and where I learned it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

..... because you so positive in your "correctness" that you are using this as a given. Do you not see the problem with this?
.

I believe somewhere on this very thread there was a reference to 'The pot calling the kettle black'. For Peacegirl's benefit, 'that is when you accuse someone else of doing something that you-yourself are doing'.

So Koan is assuming her own correctness, well then Peacegirl has been setting an example that others are now starting to follow, at least according to Peacegirl, and we all know that Peacegirl/Lessans are never wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know we have a blind spot. That's not what I'm even arguing, and you know it.

Flip - Flop - Flip - Flop - Flip - Flop.

[Spacemonkey]

Why have you come back?