A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Time for a progress report, Peacegirl!

Why do you care what marketing I'm doing or not doing, when you hate the book? I don't get you. Now if you play nice, I'll take you off of ignore. If you don't play nice, you know where you'll end up again. It's your call.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you care what marketing I'm doing or not doing, when you hate the book? I don't get you. Now if you play nice, I'll take you off of ignore. If you don't play nice, you know where you'll end up again. It's your call.

I'm just asking for a progress report. Is the above still accurate then?

(BTW, I don't hate the book. I think it's hilarious. And if you read my above post and replied to it, then I'm obviously not on ignore.)

[The Lone Ranger]

My neighbors' kids enjoy shooting guns. I see them out in the fields shooting at targets from time to time with pitiful little .22 rifles, but that looks kind of boring.

I bet they'd love it if they had some powerful assault rifles to play with. Boy, I can just picture them spraying bullets about and having a grand time.

And if a few people should happen to be hurt or killed by flying bullets, well, nobody has any reason to feel any guilt about it. After all, the parents were just trying to make sure their kids were having a good time -- they didn't intend for anybody to get hurt as a result.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just to be clear here. When you say that you are putting someone on ignore, what you mean is that, even though you are reading their posts, you are choosing not to respond to them. Until, of course, you do choose to respond to them. Is that about right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they actually don't. That would be judging my personal errors (which have nothing to do with the facts in the book) and using it as a reason to reject the book. That would be like saying I was wrong when I said you had a hamburger for dinner last night, and because of that the book cannot be true. And what do you call "frequent errors"?

It is nothing like that. I am talking about the mistakes that you make in the course of attempting to defend Lessans' claims. Stuff like cameras not working just like eyes and then cameras working just like eyes. Stuff like your claim that it would not be possible to accurately measure the time it takes for a laser beam to strike the moon and return. Stuff like how NASA would still hit Mars with a probe even if they fired it at the wrong point in space, because the planet it so damn big. Stuff like that. I am also talking about various mistakes of fact and your claims that you or Lessans have not said something when you have actually said it, and had your nose rubbed in it. That sort of stuff has seriously undermined your credibility to the point that you have no credibility left.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess the entire Association of American Physicians & Surgeons is wrong as well, and we shouldn't trust them either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm just asking for a progress report. Is the above still accurate then?

(BTW, I don't hate the book. I think it's hilarious. And if you read my above post and replied to it, then I'm obviously not on ignore.)

You were taken off of ignore at that moment because of the technical issues with signing in. Nevertheless, to use this in order to accuse me of sneaking and being a liar which you then go on to use to accuse this major discovery as being faulty is absolutely insane? It's a joke of enormous proportions. What I am not doing in marketing is nothing in comparison to what you are doing to keep me off track by your snarky responses which have no proof whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

My neighbors' kids enjoy shooting guns. I see them out in the fields shooting at targets from time to time with pitiful little .22 rifles, but that looks kind of boring.

I bet they'd love it if they had some powerful assault rifles to play with. Boy, I can just picture them spraying bullets about and having a grand time.

And if a few people should happen to be hurt or killed by flying bullets, well, nobody has any reason to feel any guilt about it. After all, the parents were just trying to make sure their kids were having a good time -- they didn't intend for anybody to get hurt as a result.

That comparison doesn't fly Lone because we know that a bullet to an organ can definitely kill (even from a strong bb gun if an essential organ is hit). Knowing this, how could there be any justification in keep a dangerous bb gun in the reach of children? I am not sure where you are using your example to justify injecting children with vaccines that could, in certain cases (however small), destroy lives. Please help me here.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1153742]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you care what marketing I'm doing or not doing, when you hate the book? I don't get you. Now if you play nice, I'll take you off of ignore. If you don't play nice, you know where you'll end up again. It's your call.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm just asking for a progress report. Is the above still accurate then?

(BTW, I don't hate the book. I think it's hilarious. And if you read my above post and replied to it, then I'm obviously not on ignore.)

To say you don't hate the book and then call it hilarious is a joke. That's why we have nothing to say to each other except for the little quips here and there that add nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. I know that you feel he was wrong about the eyes, which is unfortunately preventing you from taking this book seriously. What can I say except to back off until you come around.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were taken off of ignore at that moment because of the technical issues with signing in.

Bullshit. You never put anyone on ignore.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nevertheless, to use this in order to accuse me of sneaking and being a liar...

Excuse me? Where do you think I did this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a joke of enormous proportions.

Another brilliant subtitle for your book!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I am not doing in marketing...

So you are confirming that you've still made no effort at all to even begin marketing, and have still made precisely zero progress, choosing to waste all your time arguing on the internet while your father's book gathers dust?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. You never put anyone on ignore.

Excuse me? Where do you think I did this?

Another brilliant subtitle for your book!

So you are confirming that you've still made no effort at all to even begin marketing, and have still made precisely zero progress, choosing to waste all your time arguing on the internet while your father's book gathers dust?

You are so confrontational, and therefore not willing to even listen to the proof of determinism, that I cannot communicate with you in a way that will be productive. You are so convinced that free will is compatible with determinism, that you will scoff at anything I say.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To say you don't hate the book and then call it hilarious is a joke.

Why? I don't hate things that I find entertaining. Do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why we have nothing to say to each other except for the little quips here and there that add nothing.

Actually, it's because you've run away from me on every topic I've engaged you on, to the point that you now refuse to discuss anything at all with me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that you feel he was wrong about the eyes...

Which is perfectly reasonable seeing as how, even if we ignore the mountains of evidence proving him wrong, you have flatly contradicted yourself every single time you've tried to explain efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What can I say except to back off until you come around.

You could try honestly answering questions instead of dishonesty weaseling every time I ask you something. For instance, here I simply asked you for a progress report. Have you honestly and directly answered?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confrontational, and therefore not willing to even listen to the proof of no free will (where free will doesn't exist at all), I cannot communicate with you in a way that will be productive. Your mind is stubborn to the point of desperately trying to prove that compatibilism exists.. I don't want to get involved Spacemonkey. Believe what you want, and if you can't give Lessans a fair trial, move on. There are so many philosophies out there, go to them, and try to argue that your philosophy is right. I will route for you all the way!

Why are you again evading, changing the subject, and attacking my motives, instead of simply answering what I asked?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

My neighbors' kids enjoy shooting guns. I see them out in the fields shooting at targets from time to time with pitiful little .22 rifles, but that looks kind of boring.

I bet they'd love it if they had some powerful assault rifles to play with. Boy, I can just picture them spraying bullets about and having a grand time.

And if a few people should happen to be hurt or killed by flying bullets, well, nobody has any reason to feel any guilt about it. After all, the parents were just trying to make sure their kids were having a good time -- they didn't intend for anybody to get hurt as a result.

You aren't being serious, are you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? I don't hate things that I find entertaining. Do you?

Entertaining in a mocking way? Is that why it's entertaining to you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why we have nothing to say to each other except for the little quips here and there that add nothing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, it's because you've run away from me on every topic I've engaged you on, to the point that you now refuse to discuss anything at all with me.

I am not discussing the eyes anymore, and I did answer you as to why compatibilism is just another way of having your cake and eating it too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that you feel he was wrong about the eyes...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is perfectly reasonable seeing as how, even if we ignore the mountains of evidence proving him wrong, you have flatly contradicted yourself every single time you've tried to explain efferent vision.

I don't think I have contradicted myself at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What can I say except to back off until you come around.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You could try honestly answering questions instead of dishonesty weaseling every time I ask you something. For instance, here I simply asked you for a progress report. Have you honestly and directly answered?

Don't come off like Mr. Innocent. You're the one that called me a moron. Now you want me to act like everything is peaches and cream. You asked for a progress report, and I asked why it matters to you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you again evading, changing the subject, and attacking my motives, instead of simply answering what I asked?

Yes, I'm questioning your motives and I have every right to since you don't seem sincere; you seem to be mocking me any chance you get. I'm not on trial Spacemonkey, and I am not under a subpoena to answer you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. You never put anyone on ignore.

Yes I did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nevertheless, to use this in order to accuse me of sneaking and being a liar...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Excuse me? Where do you think I did this?

I don't even know what "using this to accuse me" even means because you didn't include the previous line.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a joke of enormous proportions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another brilliant subtitle for your book!

And you wonder why I'm not making progress?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I am not doing in marketing...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you are confirming that you've still made no effort at all to even begin marketing, and have still made precisely zero progress, choosing to waste all your time arguing on the internet while your father's book gathers dust?

I'm still waiting for the final proof with last minute changes. They won't allow me to put the book for sale until I get the proof and give the okay. I only got one hardback book but the flap wasn't complete so I have to wait again. I got an email that the book is on its way. After that, I can order only 5 books to start (that's all I can afford). Marketing is the next step and it is going to take a lot of hard work. I thank Vivisectus, LadyShea, and Christina's for their ideas and I will probably use some of them.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Results:

Books sold: 0
People convinced: 0
Estimated date of revolution: unspecified time after we are all dead.
Amount of crow eaten by detractors: 0 crows.

Enablers:

Meaningful changes made to marketing approach: 0
Meaningful changes made to website: 0
Skills acquired to market book: 0
Time spent acquiring relevant skills: 0
Time spent on relevant tasks: 0

Tasks achieved this week:

Read some stuff on the internet
Posted on the freethought forum about how I am not talking to people anymore and how they are all biased.

That was actually a helpful list.

You are right that I have not acquired any marketing skills as of yet, and I hope to change that. Encouragement is welcome.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Just to be clear here. When you say that you are putting someone on ignore, what you mean is that, even though you are reading their posts, you are choosing not to respond to them. Until, of course, you do choose to respond to them. Is that about right?

That's about right. Stephen Maturin was on ignore. Spacemonkey and Davidm's posts were ignored even though I could see them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[qutoe="Angakuk"]It is nothing like that. I am talking about the mistakes that you make in the course of attempting to defend Lessans' claims. Stuff like cameras not working just like eyes and then cameras working just like eyes.

Because these were questions that I was under pressure to answer without having time to think about it. If Lessans is right (which I believe he is), I knew there had to be an explanation as to why cameras and eyes always get the same image. I just didn't think it through carefully enough because I had to quickly come up with an answer which turned out to be incorrect. I realized that a camera works exactly like the eye, therefore it is no surprise that what is developed on film is exactly what is seen in real time. Cameras utilize the same exact light that the eye utilizes when an object is in one's field of view. Without the object in view, there would be no image on the film, just as there would be no image on the retina. My original mistake in no way negates Lessans' claim, and to say that it does is poor reasoning on your part.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Stuff like your claim that it would not be possible to accurately measure the time it takes for a laser beam to strike the moon and return.

I said it would be impossible to know in one second's time whether we're seeing the actual moon, or seeing the light that has returned from the moon and interpreted in the brain. I did not say light cannot be measured in terms of time.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Stuff like how NASA would still hit Mars with a probe even if they fired it at the wrong point in space, because the planet it so damn big. Stuff like that.

All I said is that the time/light delay may not play as big a part in hitting the target planet, as David seems to think. Why aren't there any articles discussing this important mathematical calculation that has to be factored in?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am also talking about various mistakes of fact and your claims that you or Lessans have not said something when you have actually said it, and had your nose rubbed in it. That sort of stuff has seriously undermined your credibility to the point that you have no credibility left.

Give me some examples of when I claimed to have not said something and then had my nose rubbed in it? Like when I used the term "internet checkers?" Silly stuff like that? Saying the speed of light has to be recalculated? I admit that was silly, but does that make this entire book wrong? It does no such thing Angakuk. You are really trying hard to make it appear as if these trivial mistakes have more significance than they do.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[davidm]

You really are a contemptible creep, peacegirl. I see you continue to link to sites that claim vaccines cause autism. The claim is fucking wrong.

Also see: Debunking Vaccination Myths

It's a good thing no one listens to you, and everyone laughs at you instead. If people listened to you and stopped vaccinating kids, you would be responsible for their deaths.

Oh, btw, Phil Plait is an astronomer. Have you e-mailed him Lessans' analysis of light and sight yet, to see what he has to say about it? Or shall I do it for you?

[peacegirl]

Here are two links that people may be interested in viewing:

ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute: Multiple Vaccines. Danger!

AGreenRoad Magazine - Teaching A Science Of Sustainable Health/Success: Dr. Viera Scheibner PhD - Vaccination, The Hidden Truth

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, how about if we blame the rise in autism on the increase in global warming? Or the decline in the number of pirates worldwide? Or how about if we blame it on the number of idiotic posts you have made in ten years on the Internet? Why not, eh?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, doo-dah, doo-dah!

Fucking idiot.

[davidm]

More food for thought, peacegirl

Now, if only you could think.

[peacegirl]

I love to see how a little love and compassion goes a long way.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't being serious, are you?

You have no grounds to complain. After all, you're the one who insisted that parents -- if they justify it by claiming they're doing "what they think is best for their own kids" -- should be free to engage in activities which we know endanger the lives of not just their own children but other people's children as well.

And, according to you, if somebody else's kid dies as a result of their reckless and irresponsible behavior, they shouldn't feel guilty, because that wasn't the intention.

You're on the record as having made that claim. You're the one who has insisted that a parent's freedom to do "what they think is right for their kids" is paramount, even if that means putting the lives of other people's kids at risk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have no grounds to complain. After all, you're the one who insisted that parents -- if they justify it by claiming they're doing "what they think is best for their own kids" -- should be free to engage in activities which we know endanger the lives of not just their own children but other people's children as well.

And, according to you, if somebody else's kid dies as a result of their reckless and irresponsible behavior, they shouldn't feel guilty, because that wasn't the intention.

You're on the record as having made that claim. You're the one who has insisted that a parent's freedom to do "what they think is right for their kids" is paramount, even if that means putting the lives of other people's kids at risk.

First of all, saying no to vaccines is not reckless behavior. I don't know if you've been reading any of the articles I posted. Why is your head in the sand? First and foremost, it is the parents' obligation to do what they believe is in their children's best interest, and if that means saying no to vaccines, then no authority figure should be able to take that right away, no matter how misguided they are made to feel. This is such a heated debate, it's not worth arguing about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this topic. If I had a young child, I personally would hear all sides to make sure I'm getting all the facts. I'll post this again. Are you going to so callously say that there was no link to the vaccines these children were given and that these parents didn't know what they were talking about?

http://www.thinktwice.com/multiple.htm

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, saying no to vaccines is not reckless behavior. I don't know if you've been reading any of the articles I posted. Why is your head in the sand? First and foremost, it is the parents' obligation to do what they believe is in their children's best interest, and if that means saying no to vaccines, then no authority figure should be able to take that right away, no matter how misguided they are made to feel. This is such a heated debate, it's not worth arguing about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this topic. If I had a young child, I personally would hear all sides to make sure I'm getting all the facts. I'll post this again. Are you going to so callously say that there was no link to the vaccines these children were given and that these parents didn't know what they were talking about?

ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute: Multiple Vaccines. Danger!

Right, there is NO link between vaccines and autism,

God, you are pathetic. You seem to have never learned anything at all about anything.

Hey, peacegirl, if parents think it's OK to let their children play with a loaded gun, and do so in the presence of other children, nothing wrong with that, right? One musn't override parental authority!