A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sorry peacegirl, that's how science is done. Who do you reckon is going to "confirm the discovery is valid" if not scientists? How can scientists go about confirming it if scientific methodology can't be applied?

Exactly what is your expectation...that a "top scientist" will read it, say "I approve this message" and away you go?

Scientists are just as mortal and flawed as the politicians that say: I approve this message. Stop trying to divide this world into those who know and those who don't. This is stopping you from seeing people as a whole, and what they may have to offer the world. Just because they may not fit into your definition of what makes knowledge worthy of consideration does not make it unworthy of consideration. Remember that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you don't care. That's the problem.

Why is it a problem that I don't care what you think of my motivations?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? I don't need your address. If you want the book, go to www.trafford.com, and buy it like everybody else. If it's not worth it to you, don't buy it. It's as simple as that LadyShea, so stop making this more than it is.

That was me, not LadyShea you were replying to. And the issue is that you promised to send a copy of the book to me to donate to a local university on your behalf, and now you are blatantly reneging while citing inconsistent grounds. That is dishonest and despicable behaviour. If the problem is that you can't afford it, then at least be honest about it instead of trying to blame me at the same time. And if you really can't afford it, then why did you agree to it in the first place?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who in this society is somehow prevented from expressing their thoughts on any subject? That guy has a blog, right? He has a chance to express any thought he wants and he does so and did so for several years! You are publishing a book...no monopoly is preventing you doing that. Correct?

So what the fuck are you talking about?

I don't think having a blog will help my situation, that's why. This knowledge is too difficult and too significant to be on a small blog page. Look what happened here as an example. I know I have to find a way to make people aware that this book exists, but the method is important and what works for most authors cannot be used here. So stop with your "wonderful" advice LadyShea, which is misguided.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you're openly reneging on your promise? Shame on you, Peacegirl.

I've never given you any reason to think I was interested in the book, and I've always been completely upfront about my offer and what I would do with the book.

For you to pull out now, citing financial difficulties and blaming me at the same time (a first blow right there!) is deeply dishonest and reprehensible.

Have you no shame? Have you no conscience? Apparently your word counts for nothing.

So this is an example of what we could have expected in Lessans "Golden Age"? A lot of broken promises and false advertizing. Since Peacegirl is the main (only) proponent of Lessans "Golden Age", it's probably a good thing that it will never happen. Is this a demonstration of how Peacegirl's conscience really works, very poorly if you ask me. Of course I'm not really surprised at this turn of events, peacegirl has consistantly been dishonist and unrelaible, failing to provide answers to questions, refusing to look at evidence presented, and now backing out on a promise.

Peacegirl, let me tell you how you can enjoy all the benifits of Lessans "Golden Age" right now. Go off into the wilderness and find a cabin or a cave and live as a hermit, and you can have your very own Blameless, no free will society.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why is it a problem that I don't care what you think of my motivations?

And the issue is that you promised to send a copy of the book to me to donate to a local university on your behalf, and now you are blatantly reneging while citing inconsistent grounds. That is dishonest and despicable behaviour. If the problem is that you can't afford it, then at least be honest about it instead of trying to blame me at the same time. And if you really can't afford it, then why did you agree to it in the first place?

That's one of the reasons, but not the only reason. If you told me that you wanted to read it, and I promised you, I would send it regardless of the cost because I promised it to you. But if you're going to just donate it, it will probably sit and gather dust. I am under a lot of pressure as far as a marketing budget and I have to use it wisely. The professors who taught you will most likely use the same logic to pooh pooh this work? That's why I'm looking for philosophers who recognize that man does not have free will so I can move forward, otherwise I'll be stuck on page 50 forever. Getting the university professors to recognize this knowledge based on their level of skill and understanding (especially if they are compatibalists or libertarians) is like swimming against the tide and very difficult to overcome due to the emotional nature of this issue. I'm not sure how to approach this. I may have to go to the woos for help.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

p. 3 People have often questioned, “Well assuming that you did make
a fantastic discovery, why bring it to me? You should run to the
nearest university so it can be acknowledged. Then you would be
acclaimed a genius and become famous the world over.”

“That’s exactly what I did but when one professor heard my claims
he smiled and lost all interest. Another used a method for screening
out the wrong applicants for such a discovery. He immediately
questioned my educational background and wanted to know from
what university I graduated, to which I replied, “I have no formal
education because I never completed the 7th grade.” Then without
giving me a chance to tell him that my informal education was far
superior to his formal education he responded without giving much
thought to what he was about to say, ‘And you dare to come in here
with such outrageous claims about solving all the problems of human
relation!’”

“I couldn’t believe my ears, and my blood was beginning to boil.”

“Well tell me,” I said, trying to control myself, “What is your
formal education?”

“I graduated from Harvard with many honors and credentials.”
I then inquired, “With all your formal education, your honors,
your degrees and diplomas, what discoveries have you made to solve
the problems plaguing mankind?” There was no answer and he hung
up.

After that I was completely frustrated. Did you ever hear of
anything so insulting, as if a discovery could not be made unless
someone graduates college first? Which of these universities taught
Newton, Edison, or Einstein, or did they perceive relations their
professors were unable to understand until explained to them?
Instead of being centers of investigation where new knowledge can be
thoroughly analyzed, the professors use what they have been taught as
a standard of truth from which vantage point they survey the
landscape of divergent views for the sole purpose of criticism and
disagreement. Isn’t this a perfect example of putting the proverbial
cart before the horse, which should be a lesson to all professors that
they should never become so dogmatic about their theories or opinions
that they won’t take the time to investigate anything that might lead
to the truth.

Unbeknownst to the highest ranking scholars, the universities
have been handing along from generation to generation conceptions,
not verified knowledge, that will be exploded once certain undeniable
relations are perceived and pointed out to man’s common sense.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know why I was going to send you the book. My question is: If you don't think it's a worthwhile book, why would you even think of giving it to a university?

Peacegirl, it's not like Lessans books fly off the shelves. This may be one of your very few chances to get it out there. Your dad didn't make any money off his books, and you are not going to either. The best you can hope for is to get them out there by any means possible and let people read it and see what happens. Any other course of action belies your lack of faith in the book. By now you must realize that what you are doing makes no business sense whatsoever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I'm looking for philosophers who recognize that man does not have free will so I can move forward, otherwise I'll be stuck on page 50 forever. Getting the university professors to recognize this knowledge based on their level of skill and understanding (especially if they are compatibalists or libertarians) is like swimming against the tide and very difficult to overcome due to the emotional nature of this issue.

So that is the litmus test, that the reader must believe in 'No Free Will' to start with. That would indicate that you believe that Lessans arguments for 'No Free will' are indeed useless and untrue. Otherwise you would be willing to let the book convince people that we have 'No Free will'. Just another chink in the armor of your belief.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, it's not like Lessans books fly off the shelves. This may be one of your very few chances to get it out there. Your dad didn't make any money off his books, and you are not going to either. The best you can hope for is to get them out there by any means possible and let people read it and see what happens. Any other course of action belies your lack of faith in the book. By now you must realize that what you are doing makes no business sense whatsoever.

It seems odd that if the book is such a value to humanity that Peacegirl is so reluctant to part with them without making a healthy profit. A book of such value, with so much benefit for mankind would surely be rewarded, and that Peacegirl refuses to part with them indicates her lack of faith in the knowledge contained in the book. Before you can sell something, you must first create a demand for it, and this Peacegirl has completely failed to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So that is the litmus test, that the reader must believe in 'No Free Will' to start with. That would indicate that you believe that Lessans arguments for 'No Free will' are indeed useless and untrue. Otherwise you would be willing to let the book convince people that we have 'No Free will'. Just another chink in the armor of your belief.

No chinks here. I really don't know why I'm even responding to you because you continue to look for nonexistent flaws, but I'll answer this post for the sake of others. It is not necessary to prove the truth of determinism for his discovery to be be validated empirically, although most people want to understand why man's will is not free.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 31 After the rabbi left, our conversation continued...

“Boy, that was really something to see; you almost sound like old
Socrates himself. Just imagine, you actually got the rabbi to admit
that free will is nothing other than an opinion. But you weren’t
serious about getting rid of all the evil in the world, were you?”

“I was never more serious in all my life.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing
else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say so,
this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible, or telling me that you know it is
impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi I certainly would
never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems
so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from
the entire earth, that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well what is
your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt,
and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is
not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free
as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you
get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free,
simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”

“Yes I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose
in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound
basis from which to reason, but to show exactly why the will of man is
not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will
cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical
impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take
your time with this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems odd that if the book is such a value to humanity that Peacegirl is so reluctant to part with them without making a healthy profit. A book of such value, with so much benefit for mankind would surely be rewarded, and that Peacegirl refuses to part with them indicates her lack of faith in the knowledge contained in the book. Before you can sell something, you must first create a demand for it, and this Peacegirl has completely failed to do.

I have absolute faith in this book not because he's my father but because I understand the foundational principles upon which this entire discovery (the two-sided equation) is based. You have no understanding of these principles, yet you claim you do. This is dishonest thedoc.

I have to create a demand for the book which requires getting people to know that it exists. Give me some ideas instead of cricitizing me. I don't have money to give a free book to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants one. I have already put the first three chapters online. Have you told anyone about my website? If you're so interested in helping me then do something worthwhile instead of yap yap yap on this useless thread. If someone of influence reads the first three chapters that I've worked hard to make available in a .pdf format, and sees something to it, I would definitely part with the book thedoc, so you're wrong that I don't have any faith in this knowledge. You're getting more and more desperate to find anything you can to twist the truth of who I am and who my father was.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No chinks here. I really don't know why I'm even responding to you because you continue to look for nonexistent flaws, but I'll answer this post for the sake of others. It is not necessary to prove the truth of determinism for his discovery to be be validated empirically, although most people want to understand why man's will is not free.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place
p. 31 After the rabbi left, our conversation continued...
“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt,
and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is
not free.”

And the problem still remains, Lessans proved nothing here, and he proved nothing in the book, just a lot of empty assertions that were unconnected. One did not lead to the next, so the reader was left hanging with no explination.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems odd that if the book is such a value to humanity that Peacegirl is so reluctant to part with them without making a healthy profit. A book of such value, with so much benefit for mankind would surely be rewarded, and that Peacegirl refuses to part with them indicates her lack of faith in the knowledge contained in the book. Before you can sell something, you must first create a demand for it, and this Peacegirl has completely failed to do.

Yes, it's basic business. You have to give some away to create a buzz and then come the sales. But I'm afraid that peacegirl will end her life like her dad's, with a basement full of books that no one will read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And the problem still remains, Lessans proved nothing here, and he proved nothing in the book, just a lot of empty assertions that were unconnected. One did not lead to the next, so the reader was left hanging with no explination.

People, do you get that this remark is coming from someone who has not read the book or understood a thing this man has written? There's a loose connection but it has nothing to do with empty assertions that aren't connected. This has to do with you and what's not connecting up there. You're just not getting this knowledge at all probably because you never tried. Do you even know what his observations are? All you do is read other people's posts and agree with them by denouncing anything Lessans has to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yes, it's basic business. You have to give some away to create a buzz and then come the sales. But I'm afraid that peacegirl will end her life like her dad's, with a basement full of books that no one will read.

I am going to give books away but not just to anyone. I have to be discriminating or I'll be broke in no time. My hope is that the people who read the book carefully and understand it (whether I give it to them or they buy it) will want to tell others about it. That's what a grassroots effort is. I hope it goes viral. I don't have money for advertising or major press releases, and I am not going to use social media like twitter because it doesn't feel right for the type of book this is. It's too commercial. I might go to other people's facebook pages and give them the link, but I'm not going to get into another type of discussion like I did here unless I create my own forum where people can discuss the book after they've read it. All I can do is try NA. This is in God's hands, not mine.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you told me that you wanted to read it, and I promised you, I would send it regardless of the cost because I promised it to you.

Right, so we can dispense with this 'Ooh, I can't afford it' bullshit. You did promise to send a copy so you should send it. And you promised to send me a copy knowing full well that I had no personal interest in it myself. The whole point was to help you get the book to be read by actual philosophers. For you to renege now, based on a reason which was never part of the agreement at all, is deeply dishonest. You are going back on your word.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you're going to just donate it, it will probably sit and gather dust. I am under a lot of pressure as far as a marketing budget and I have to use it wisely. The professors who taught you will most likely use the same logic to pooh pooh this work?

It's possible, but you will face that risk no matter how you go about marketing the book. You can't force people to agree with it. The best you can hope for is to get the material read by the most competent thinkers you can find and then let Lessans' arguments work their magic. As others are pointing out, that you feel the need to present his work only to those already predisposed to agree with his conclusions betrays a deep lack of confidence in the persuasive power of his arguments.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how to approach this. I may have to go to the woos for help.

What would be the point of that? The woos are those most credulous and least competent at critical and analytical thinking. You might persuade a few to take the book seriously, but then what? Are they in any position of intellectual authority to be able to give this book the kind of rubber stamp of approval which will lead others to consider it validated? The approval of the woos, if you even get it, is the one thing guaranteed to make real thinkers even less likely to take his work seriously.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? I don't need your address. If you want the book, go to www.trafford.com, and buy it like everybody else. If it's not worth it to you, don't buy it. It's as simple as that LadyShea, so stop making this more than it is.

That was Spacemoneky, not me

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did not even address my question.This just shows me how closed off you really are: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The sad part of all of this is that your stance on this subject is preventing the very thing you were hoping to find. How ironic.

What question?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientists are just as mortal and flawed as the politicians that say: I approve this message. Stop trying to divide this world into those who know and those who don't.

I am asking you who you think will be able to confirm the validity of Lessans ideas.

This is stopping you from seeing people as a whole, and what they may have to offer the world. Just because they may not fit into your definition of what makes knowledge worthy of consideration does not make it unworthy of consideration. Remember that.

What's that got to do with the point I was making?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think having a blog will help my situation, that's why.

What does that have to do with what I said? You said "no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject", I proved that claim wrong by pointing out that we were discussing someone's blog where he was expressing his thoughts on a subject and that you had a book expressing thoughts. Nobody is prevented from expressing their thoughts, you see. Everyone has a chance to express them.

This knowledge is too difficult and too significant to be on a small blog page. Look what happened here as an example. I know I have to find a way to make people aware that this book exists, but the method is important and what works for most authors cannot be used here. So stop with your "wonderful" advice LadyShea, which is misguided.

WTF? Are you drunk? I wasn't giving you advice. I was refuting your argument that "no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People, do you get that this remark is coming from someone who has not read the book or understood a thing this man has written?

You're just not getting this knowledge at all probably because you never tried.

Do you even know what his observations are? .

Several lies here.

I did read the book, and I understand what Lessans was trying to say but he didn't say it very well and not clearly at all. It really is a confused mess.

There is really no knowledge to get, Lessans wrote a bunch of nonsense that amounted to nothing.

There were no observations so there was nothing to know, only in your imaginations.

[Vivisectus]

I too am bothered by the stifling dogmatism of modern scientific thought. The bias in favour of the ascendant paradigm means that absolutely no time, funding or thought goes into some of the alternate models that are being proposed, merely on the basis that they do not suit their narrow world-view.

The flat-earth model of the universe has been neglected for centuries now, for instance. It has a fair share of lay followers (they even have a little web-ring: look them up some time) and so far this model has not received any serious attention from relevant scholars. There is no funding available for flat-earth scholarship, and any astro-physicist who proposes a flat-earth model of the universe would probably be silenced by the derision of the followers of the round-earth theory, as it makes them uncomfortable to have their cosy little consensus challenged. But the theory that the earth is round is just that: a theory. And as Peacegirl so rightly said: a theory is a theory is a theory. It has never been conclusively proven that the earth is round: it is entirely possible that something else is going on. Rather than wait for the empirical data that proves that the earth is flat to come in, they simply jump to the conclusion that the earth is not flat.

Of course I am not saying that the round-earth theory is necessarily wrong, I am merely pointing out that since scientists are not giving the flat earth theory equal time to their precious round-earth paradigm, this proves that my own idea, namely that the world was created and is run by fairies, is plausible. You see, once you have proven that scientists do not see all theories as equally plausible, this proves that they are biased. Biased people are often wrong, so this strongly suggests that they are wrong about my own belief: the belief that the world is operated by fairies. After all, science is for the most part theoretical according to Peacegirl, and although I am not sure what she means by this, it sure sounds important.

Science ignores the evidence in favour of the existence of fairies, despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence for the non-existence of fairies! Do you call that objective? Not a penny is being spent of fairy research, and no-one takes fairyology seriously. This means that it is unreasonable to say that it is extremely unlikely that fairies exist, or that there is no reason to assume that they do. Indeed, the very lack of any scientific evidence in favour of fairies is no reason to assume they do not exist: it is merely proof of how biased scientists are.

Until science learns to treat all ideas as equally plausible, it will never be truly objective, and as long as it is not truly objective, this means that anything it says that makes my own idea less likely can be safely ignored.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think having a blog will help my situation, that's why. This knowledge is too difficult and too significant to be on a small blog page. Look what happened here as an example. I know I have to find a way to make people aware that this book exists, but the method is important and what works for most authors cannot be used here. So stop with your "wonderful" advice LadyShea, which is misguided.

Added to this post: LadyShea, the fact that he can express himself was not the point I was making when I posted his blog entry. In fact, this had nothing to do with the fact that he can express himself. We all can express ourselves in this society. What disturbs me is the fact that science has turned some theories (however true they may appear) into concrete facts, which then makes anyone who dares to oppose these "facts" as being ignorant woos. This prevents different points of view on a theory from ever entering the public realm because it's not considered "scientific", and science has the monopoly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Several lies here.

I did read the book, and I understand what Lessans was trying to say but he didn't say it very well and not clearly at all. It really is a confused mess.

There is really no knowledge to get, Lessans wrote a bunch of nonsense that amounted to nothing.

There were no observations so there was nothing to know, only in your imaginations.

As long as I'm here, you're not going to get away with this thedoc. You understand nothing. You can try to convince yourself that you do, but believe me you don't. I just read over Chapter One and it is clearly written. Everything follows in a step by step fashion. There are no non-sequiturs, so for you to say that it's a bunch of nonsense, without ever asking a question or showing in any way that you understand what he wrote, exposes you as being dishonest and makes you look like a total fool. In fact, you are looking more and more ignorant everytime you post, if that's even possible.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 5 In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader
must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and
false, but understand the difference between a mathematical relation
and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly
confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to
clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated
through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost.

However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks
no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude
the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the
long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks
he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right, so we can dispense with this 'Ooh, I can't afford it' bullshit. You did promise to send a copy so you should send it. And you promised to send me a copy knowing full well that I had no personal interest in it myself. The whole point was to help you get the book to be read by actual philosophers. For you to renege now, based on a reason which was never part of the agreement at all, is deeply dishonest. You are going back on your word.

What did I just say Spacemonkey? I said I would send it to you, so why are you giving me so much grief?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you're going to just donate it, it will probably sit and gather dust. I am under a lot of pressure as far as a marketing budget and I have to use it wisely. The professors who taught you will most likely use the same logic to pooh pooh this work?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's possible, but you will face that risk no matter how you go about marketing the book. You can't force people to agree with it. The best you can hope for is to get the material read by the most competent thinkers you can find and then let Lessans' arguments work their magic. As others are pointing out, that you feel the need to present his work only to those already predisposed to agree with his conclusions betrays a deep lack of confidence in the persuasive power of his arguments.

I agree with the first part of your post, but not the latter. Biased thinking is alive and well, and it's almost impossible to get people, who already have a worldview that they believe in, to consider an alternate point of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how to approach this. I may have to go to the woos for help.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What would be the point of that? The woos are those most credulous and least competent at critical and analytical thinking. You might persuade a few to take the book seriously, but then what? Are they in any position of intellectual authority to be able to give this book the kind of rubber stamp of approval which will lead others to consider it validated? The approval of the woos, if you even get it, is the one thing guaranteed to make real thinkers even less likely to take his work seriously.

Real thinker? Least competent? I have not found that to be the case Spacemonkey. You are using the term "woo" to discredit anything someone other than a scientist may have to say, which is the worst kind of intellectual snobbery that I can think of. Don't you get that yet? If anything, it will be the academic elitists (the scientists who are dictating and in control of what we think about) that will delay this discovery from coming to light, not the woos.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as I'm here, you're not going to get away with this thedoc. You understand nothing. You can try to convince yourself that you do, but believe me you don't. I just read over Chapter One and it is clearly written. Everything follows in a step by step fashion. There are no non-sequiturs, so for you to say that it's a bunch of nonsense, without ever asking a question or showing in any way that you understand what he wrote, exposes you as being dishonest and makes you look like a total fool. In fact, you are looking more and more ignorant everytime you post, if that's even possible.

The advantage I have here is that I do not need to convince you, Peacegirl, of anything, in fact I can see that I will never convince you of anything. My posts are for the benefit of others who read the thread, lurkers and participants, and I can see from the responses that some of my posts are understood and appreciated. So whether you believe me or not is irrevelant, your only use here, for me, is to provide nonsense fodder for me to counter with accurate information and impressions. Like most others, who post here, I am no longer concerned about what you think of me, only the impression that I have on others who are reading this thread, and I can see that my small contribution sometimes adds to the general body of acurrate and honest information on the subjects under discussion. But I do want to thank you for reading and responding to my posts, it just gives me more to comment on.