A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I have not been looking for reviewers. The last reviewer did a terrible job. This book requires a lot of study, not a quick overview. I'm sure you can understand that.

Really?

Do you not read your own Twitter page on behalf of Seymour?

The Twitter page shows repeated tweets by "Seymour Lessans" saying, "Looking for reviewers for my book!"

Are you saying you didn't tweet those? Then who did? Seymour? Who is dead?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that your definition of lie and my definition are at odds.

Well, that is for sure.

You see, my definition of "lie" is: "making a claim that you know to be false." You do that quite frequently.

Apparently, you don't regard it as "lying" when you knowingly make false claims. I would bet that you would regard it is lying if someone else were making blatantly-false claims, however.

Some Christians "lie for Jesus," and rationalize this as an acceptable thing to do, since they view it as serving the greater good. In much the same way, you "lie for Lessans."

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1188587]

Originally Posted by davidm

I have to check when I signed up but I highly doubt it was 3 months. I couldn't take it that long.

Are you trying to say that "willful ignorance" is a valid excuse for lying.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi friends, just want to say happy Memorial Day. I am not here to argue, just want to say hello.

Well the last 3 days have put the lie to this.

[LadyShea]

You and others have discarded this knowledge simply because he did not use the "scientific method" to come to his findings. This is the standard you and others are using to judge whether there is any merit to his claims. This is the source of the problem. I don't care whether it is called scientific, authentic, undeniable, mathematical, or genuine knowledge. The word used to describe what is part of the real world is less important than the truth of the reality itself. My calling this discovery scientific is fine as far as I'm concerned because I do not believe empiricism has a monopoly on finding the truth. Just because he did not start off with a hypothesis does not make his observations any less valid. Your desire that I stop using the term "scientific" is to try to take away its status and to put it in a classification it does not belong. If I say this is a discovery instead of a scientific discovery does not change anything. You are on the wrong track.

So then you need to quit saying or expecting that science/scientists are the ones who will need to validate it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I did not imagine them. There are some bots for sure but that does not mean that there are no lurkers at all. Is there a way for you to check the stats, or is that only privy to the administrator?

You did imagine them. We did a poll to check for lurkers, and none came forward on the poll, nor have any contacted you directly to express any interest. We had a whole thread devoted to the issue.

There is no way to check the stats even for admins. The only way to know for sure that there are interested lurkers is for them to come forward in some way, shape, or form.

[LadyShea]

You have a tweet asking for reviewers stamped an hour ago! Why are you lying about something so easily checked?

Seymour Lessans @safeworld20 · 55m

Looking for reviewers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not bring the fact that he burned his books as a good quality. I wasn't judging his actions. You were. To call what he did irrational is presupposing that his reasoning was not coherent. You are back on your high horse once again. No surprise.

Your memory has reset again and you have forgotten the days long conversation we had about this.

You mentioned him burning his books a dozen times, to demonstrate that he was very diligent and couldn't countenance unsatisfactory work.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have a tweet asking for reviewers stamped an hour ago! Why are you lying about something so easily checked?

Um peacegirl, looks like you somehow set up an autotweet. It is tweeting every day , including today, at 3pm. I don't know how to do that, so can't tell you how to turn it off.

Did you not look at your Twitter account yourself when people kept telling you there were brand new tweets on it and calling you a liar? What is wrong with you?

[LadyShea]

The start of a much longer conversation, months ago

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have told us how he burned his first set of books about a dozen times, as if this proves something good or noble about him. It's a histrionic thing to do, a big dramatic display of feelings, and I stated so. How is that underhanded? How is it unobjective? I can judge his actions because he took them and you told us about them. You seemed to be inviting a judgment of it...only you expected positive judgments.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

He gave his conclusions regarding the eyes, and why he believed this to be true, but he did not tell us what or who he observed that lead him to those conclusions. What was his original research? What or who was he looking at or reading when these ideas came to him? Perhaps with this information others could observe similar situations and validate his conclusions, or not.

An experimenter could see if an owner of a vicious dog could be recognized outside of a window where the dog could not smell or hear his master, only see him at close range. The owner of the dog would be as still as possible while they brought the dog to the window. The owner of the dog would not wear anything that could be familiar to the dog such as a hat or other similar shaped item because this could skew the test. First they could have a stranger stand at the window. The dog would bark viciously. Then they would close the curtain and bring in the owner. Would he continue to bark viciously? If he did, that would clue us in that the light from his master was not being decoded in the dog's brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So you were all just accessories to his marriage? Any honest parent will admit to having favorites, perhaps one is a favorite as far as sports, and another appreciates the same kind of music. Parents may treat all their children equally, or they may treat each as each needs, but to deny favorites is a lie.

Again, your questions have an element of insinuation in them. You are accusing me of being a liar, and I'm tired of having to defend myself. He had no favorites. He loved each of us for who we were. He may have enjoyed talking to me about his book because I was there the most. My sister was out with her friends a lot of the time (as she was older) and my brother was young. That did not mean I was his favorite. He never showed any kind of partiality at all. That's why as children we loved him so much.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I did not imagine them. There are some bots for sure but that does not mean that there are no lurkers at all. Is there a way for you to check the stats, or is that only privy to the administrator?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You did imagine them. We did a poll to check for lurkers, and none came forward on the poll, nor have any contacted you directly to express any interest. We had a whole thread devoted to the issue.

Just because none came forward in a poll does not mean there weren't lurkers. Maybe they didn't want to get involved because they know that if they came forward as being interested, they may be ridiculed. After all, the MO in here is very threatening to a newcomer.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no way to check the stats even for admins. The only way to know for sure that there are interested lurkers is for them to come forward in some way, shape, or form.

Lurkers don't always come forward. It would be a very poor program if it could not distinguish bots from real people, or unique visitors from those who are regulars, and even if it can't do this because the lurkers are guests does not mean all of these hits are just robots. Maybe some, or maybe even the majority, but not all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The start of a much longer conversation, months ago

Because you are completely off base LadyShea. You are the one coming to all these false conclusions about who this man was, and you are trying very hard to make your conclusions fit your theories about him. The more you do this, the further away you are from knowing the true man he was. You are creating something in your head that was not even close to reality. That's why it's underhanded.

You can do anything you want. You can take what I said and twist it to your heart's content. It doesn't prove that he was what you are concluding he was. Your reasoning is all washed up from your premise to your conclusion. I was not inviting any judgment at all. I was stating what he did because he knew he wasn't ready to put a book out. He was in the beginning stages of thought and he knew that not all of what he wrote was clear or even completely accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have a tweet asking for reviewers stamped an hour ago! Why are you lying about something so easily checked?

What? I did not tweet that an hour ago. I have not tweeted in weeks. So stop telling me I'm a liar LadyShea. Why are you on a mission to discredit me? Why? You are searching for anything you can to make it appear that I'm not genuine. You won't win because I'm an honest person. I have weaknesses like everyone else, but I'm not what you are making me out to be.

[LadyShea]

Look at your Twitter account, peacegirl. There is a tweet going out every day at 3pm. If you're not doing it, you somehow set it up to do it automatically.

https://twitter.com/safeworld20 click the link and look at the dates and times. Do you see why one might think you are lying, seeing as how there are tweets every day there?

[peacegirl]

You and others have discarded this knowledge simply because he did not use the "scientific method" to come to his findings. This is the standard you and others are using to judge whether there is any merit to his claims. This is the source of the problem. I don't care whether it is called scientific, authentic, undeniable, mathematical, or genuine knowledge. The word used to describe what is part of the real world is less important than the truth of the reality itself. My calling this discovery scientific is fine as far as I'm concerned because I do not believe empiricism has a monopoly on finding the truth. Just because he did not start off with a hypothesis does not make his observations any less valid. Your desire that I stop using the term "scientific" is to try to take away its status and to put it in a classification it does not belong. If I say this is a discovery instead of a scientific discovery does not change anything. You are on the wrong track.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So then you need to quit saying or expecting that science/scientists are the ones who will need to validate it.

It will take scientists who understand why the definition of "scientific" is not complete. Observation and reasoning do count and unless they include this, they will be missing a large chunk of what could be true. LadyShea, you will not win. You are trying desperately to negate anything I have brought to this thread, but Lessans was right. I am fantasizing the day he is vindicated. It doesn't matter what you think. You are not the final arbiter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Look at your Twitter account, peacegirl. There is a tweet going out every day at 3pm. If you're not doing it, you somehow set it up to do it automatically.

Seymour Lessans (safeworld20) on Twitter click the link and look at the dates and times. Do you see why one might think you are lying, seeing as how there are tweets every day there?

I am glad there are tweets going out every day at 3 p.m., but I am not the one tweeting. People did not check it out carefully enough, and were too quick to accuse me of lying. What is it you don't understand LadyShea? You are wrong in accusing me of being a liar. Admit this. Say you misunderstood. You can't do it. You are too proud.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because none came forward in a poll does not mean there weren't lurkers. Maybe they didn't want to get involved because they know that if they came forward as being interested, they may be ridiculed. After all, the MO in here is very threatening to a newcomer.

We discussed that too. The poll was anonymous and required no interaction beyond clicking a button.

They also could have contacted you directly and privately through PM or email or on your Facebook page. If they exist (which they don't), and don't reveal themselves at the very least to you, then they aren't very interested.

Did you know you can set up a private Facebook group, where you would have to approve members? Why don't you do that and invite your "lurkers" to talk with you there, hidden from all of ?

Lurkers don't always come forward. It would be a very poor program if it could not distinguish bots from real people, or unique visitors from those who are regulars, and even if it can't do this because the lurkers are guests does not mean all of these hits are just robots. Maybe some, or maybe even the majority, but not all.

Unregistered readers show on the system as "guests", and there is no way to tell a person from a bot. There are thousands of them, mostly bots, they aren't tracked because that would be pointless.

If they register then their visits are tracked.

If they don't come forward to you, then they must not be very interested.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am glad there are tweets going out every day at 3 p.m., but I am not the one tweeting.

Is it your account? If so then yes, it is you that is tweeting, because tweets are coming from your account. If you aren't manually doing that tweeting, then you have set up an autotweet program to send those out every day...which is still your doing, so still you tweeting through your account. How can you possible say you're not responsible for your own account and its content?

If I set up an auto-dialer to call your home phone every day at 3pm, would you say that I was not the one calling you simply because I didn't pick up and dial the phone with my own hands?

People did not check it out carefully enough, and were too quick to accuse me of lying.

Your account has tweets from it every day, and you claimed you weren't using Twitter and told us to check the dates, which we did. Tweets every day for 3 months.

How would anyone know, or suspect, that those daily tweets on your account weren't from you? I deduced that it was programmed because the tweets were at the same time every day, but my conclusion may have been wrong. I didn't even know sending them automatically from a basic account was possible. How did you do it?

What is it you don't understand LadyShea? You are wrong in accusing me of being a liar. Admit this. Say you misunderstood. You can't do it. You are too proud.

You should admit that despite your claims that you weren't using Twitter, there are daily tweets on your account asking for reviews. You told us to check the dates and we did, and there were daily tweets. You should apologize to us for not even checking your own account to see that we were right, that there are tweets there every day, that it is an active Twitter account under your name, that it wasn't abandoned weeks ago as you claimed.

[LadyShea]

Even further investigation indicates there are many authors with similar tweets with the hashtag #BookBuzzr . Did you sign up for some kind of marketing service to tweet using your account on your behalf? Are you actually paying them to tweet for you (you must be since their Book Tweeter service is not free)? You also have it sending would be reviewers to About Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times by Seymour Lessans - Freado which is another pay service.

Don't you think it's dishonest of you to pay for a service to Tweet for you, from your account then tell people you aren't tweeting?

Oh hey, look! You have a 5 star Amazon review from Todd P. Brandes. He says the book changed his life! This is his only review on Amazon and is very lacking in details. Looks like the epitome of a fake. Did you pay him too?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It will take scientists who understand why the definition of "scientific" is not complete.

LOL, you want to redefine what science is so it meets Lessans idiosyncratic understanding. Really?

Observation and reasoning do count and unless they include this, they will be missing a large chunk of what could be true.

Empirical observation is part of the scientific method, it is the first step actually. Science does not stop there, however. It is only the jumping off point. Reasoning is used in science to create hypotheses to explain the observations, then to develop tests for the hypothesis.

Lessans did not use science, therefore science cannot nor will not validate his claims. Scientists do science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, that is for sure.

You see, my definition of "lie" is: "making a claim that you know to be false." You do that quite frequently.

And to purposely deceive. I do not do that.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Apparently, you don't regard it as "lying" when you knowingly make false claims. I would bet that you would regard it is lying if someone else were making blatantly-false claims, however.

What false claims are you talking about? The claims regarding the eyes? I am not lying for my father. I believe he was right. I will not give in just because you don't believe he was right, and you don't like to be told that science may have gotten it wrong.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Some Christians "lie for Jesus," and rationalize this as an acceptable thing to do, since they view it as serving the greater good. In much the same way, you "lie for Lessans."

I am not lying, period. This doesn't even fit your own definition. Lie in the context you defined would be that I purposely and knowingly am making a false claim. I am not purposely making a false claim so your accusations are all wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It will take scientists who understand why the definition of "scientific" is not complete.

LOL, you want to redefine what science is so it meets Lessans idiosyncratic understanding. Really?

Observation and reasoning do count and unless they include this, they will be missing a large chunk of what could be true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Empirical observation is part of the scientific method, it is the first step actually. Science does not stop there, however. It is only the jumping off point. Reasoning is used in science to create hypotheses to explain the observations, then to develop tests for the hypothesis.

Lessans did not use science, therefore science cannot nor will not validate his claims. Scientists do science.

In this case it was impossible for Lessans to make a hypothesis. The definition is incomplete. If this discovery is recognized as true without the empirical testing, what will you say then Ms. Know It All? I already said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Whether it works in real life is the true test, but his observations were spot on. He observed that man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction. You cannot see this empirically, but you can infer this. The observation that man's will is not free has major implications for the betterment of our world, whether YOU see this or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even further investigation indicates there are many authors with similar tweets with the hashtag #BookBuzzr . Did you sign up for some kind of marketing service to tweet using your account on your behalf? Are you actually paying them to tweet for you (you must be since their Book Tweeter service is not free)? You also have it sending would be reviewers to About Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times by Seymour Lessans - Freado which is another pay service.

Don't you think it's dishonest of you to pay for a service to Tweet for you, from your account then tell people you aren't tweeting?

Oh hey, look! You have a 5 star Amazon review from Todd P. Brandes. He says the book changed his life! This is his only review on Amazon and is very lacking in details. Looks like the epitome of a fake. Did you pay him too?

I signed up for a few inexpensive marketing strategies. I have no idea how long they are running, since I am paying them nothing anymore. I paid a fee when I thought this may be a good way to go. Now I don't. Where have a lied? Admit that you were mistaken.