A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There's a big difference between "weaseling" and denying that you had made claims that you had, indeed, made.

There is a word for "denying that you had made claims that you had, indeed, made." It is called lying.

No, it's called forgetting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So this is not lying, according to you:

peacegirl: Cameras see in delayed time.
Everyone else: Obviously. That's easily demonstrated, as the camera cannot take a picture until the light reaches it.
peacegirl: (After re-examining the Holy Scripture): Cameras do not see in delayed time; they see in real time.
Everyone else: Wait. You just claimed that cameras see in delayed time.
peacegirl: No I didn't.
Everyone else: Yes you did. Here are several pages worth of quotes of you insisting just that.
peacegirl: I never said that cameras see in delayed time.

You know, I'd bet that if anyone else had done this, you wouldn't hesitate to call it what it is -- lying.

I did weasel because I knew people would use my vacillating against me; but I did not lie. My reasoning as to how to reconcile cameras with eyes didn't match up at first. I had to rethink it with the efferent model in mind. Remember, I never thought about this stuff but I knew there had to be a logical explanation. Light has to be at both the retina and film, and they can work in the same way using the efferent model. As long as the physical object is within the field of view of a lens, then the light must already be at the film just as it has to be at the retina. It is no different. It's the same light regardless of whether it's the retina, camera, or telescope. It took me awhile to figure it out, but this does not mean I was purposely deceptive. I actually was trying to keep your interest and I was concerned that you would conclude this was some kind of proof that the claim was false. It does no such thing and it would be a disservice if you closed the door to any further investigation.

[The Lone Ranger]

Once more: You didn't just make false claims; you denied making those claims even as people quoted your own words back to you.

And that most-definitely is lying, no matter how much you try to rationalize and deny it.



We all know that you have the memory of a goldfish. But you can't pretend that you don't remember when you're responding to your very own words quoted back to you.

[The Lone Ranger]

And just for the record; I don't mean to denigrate the humble goldfish. I was simply using a well-known analogy.

In reality, contrary to the popular claim, goldfish can learn and remember. peacegirl shows no such capacity. Or more precisely, her memory is extremely selective.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Or more precisely, her memory is extremely selective.

There is a word for what you just said about Peacegirl, it's "charitable".

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And just for the record; I don't mean to denigrate the humble goldfish.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I am getting very tired of your insinuations.

I've not posted any insinuations, I posted facts. Do you deny the facts?

I am not using Twitter as a means of marketing, period.

Are you denying that you paid for BookBuzzr to market via Twitter using your account?

No one asked me if I had used Twitter.

davidm asked you how your marketing via Twitter, which he had seen and which is still there to be seen, was working out for you.

I did try it months ago, but I am not using it now.

Your Twitter account has had daily activity. So yes, you are using it, you are just doing so passively.

I paid $5 to BookBuzzer for one month, but put a hold on any further payments. Another book club I paid $25 and they tweet for you for an extended period of time.

BookBuzzr is still tweeting for you, at 3pm today as well.

You are anal, but you are no better an investigator than anyone else. You're just a big snoop, and you try to twist the meaning of my words to fit your agenda.

I wouldn't have snooped if you had simply admitted that your Twitter account was active with daily tweets because you paid for them. You acted like you didn't even know they were there, even when you were told there were tweets from that very day!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did weasel because I knew people would use my vacillating against me; but I did not lie.

You weaseled and then lied about what you had said, even as your own words were quoted back to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My reasoning as to how to reconcile cameras with eyes didn't match up at first.

It still doesn't match up. You've just given up discussing it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I had to rethink it with the efferent model in mind. Remember, I never thought about this stuff but I knew there had to be a logical explanation.

You still don't have a logical explanation. You have no explanation for how the light at the film/retina can be there without having traveled to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at both the retina and film, and they can work in the same way using the efferent model. As long as the physical object is within the field of view of a lens, then the light must already be at the film just as it has to be at the retina. It is no different. It's the same light regardless of whether it's the retina, camera, or telescope. It took me awhile to figure it out...

You still haven't figured it out. You still have no idea how the light at the film/retina can be there without having traveled to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but this does not mean I was purposely deceptive.

You were deliberately saying things you knew to be untrue. I agree it was not for the purpose of deceiving us. I think your purpose was more to try to deceive yourself into thinking you were maintaining some kind of reasonable position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually was trying to keep your interest and I was concerned that you would conclude this was some kind of proof that the claim was false. It does no such thing and it would be a disservice if you closed the door to any further investigation.

Lying and weaseling does not maintain interest. Whether you were aware of it or not, you were actually trying to turn your audience against you so that you could continue feeding your martyr complex. You need help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Once more: You didn't just make false claims; you denied making those claims even as people quoted your own words back to you.

And that most-definitely is lying, no matter how much you try to rationalize and deny it.

We all know that you have the memory of a goldfish. But you can't pretend that you don't remember when you're responding to your very own words quoted back to you.

If I did lie at that moment it was only because I did not want people to use my mistake to give up on my father's claim, but that does not make me a liar. I can't remember the time I felt the need to lie in my life. Most people lie because it helps them in some way since the alternative (not to lie) is worse in their eyes at a particular moment in time. I am not endorsing lying, I am just saying that lying often serves a useful purpose and if the cause for the lie is not removed, then people will continue to lie if it benefits them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I am getting very tired of your insinuations.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've not posted any insinuations, I posted facts. Do you deny the facts?

No, I don't deny the facts but my statement that I'm not going that route is true. I never said I didn't use twitter, and I forgot that certain websites I signed up for are still tweeting on my behalf. You are constantly twisting things around making me look like a liar when I'm not. You'd be a good prosecutor because they know how to do this to perfection. Unfortunately, the defendant is usually victimized twice. And anyway, all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of my father's work.

I am not using Twitter as a means of marketing, period.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you denying that you paid for BookBuzzr to market via Twitter using your account?

I signed up for their service months ago, but I realized it wouldn't help me. I paid them $5. I am not denying that I paid them, but I AM NOT PRESENTLY USING TWITTER. What don't you understand LadyShea?

No one asked me if I had used Twitter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm asked you how your marketing via Twitter, which he had seen and which is still there to be seen, was working out for you.

And I said it's not working out. I am not going that route, which is a true statement. I never said I didn't sign up for twitter. If he had asked me had I ever used twitter I would have said yes. What do I have to hide?

I did try it months ago, but I am not using it now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your Twitter account has had daily activity. So yes, you are using it, you are just doing so passively.

So condemn me on a technicality. I am not involved. I don't go there. I don't check except when I get something in my email. That may change, but right now I have no interest in pursuring twitter.

I paid $5 to BookBuzzer for one month, but put a hold on any further payments. Another book club I paid $25 and they tweet for you for an extended period of time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BookBuzzr is still tweeting for you, at 3pm today as well.

That's nice. I didn't know because I don't check and because I only paid them once ($5).

You are anal, but you are no better an investigator than anyone else. You're just a big snoop, and you try to twist the meaning of my words to fit your agenda.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wouldn't have snooped if you had simply admitted that your Twitter account was active with daily tweets because you paid for them. You acted like you didn't even know they were there, even when you were told there were tweets from that very day!

I didn't know they were still there. I was wondering where the tweets were coming from because it was quite awhile ago and I didn't realize they were still running. I didn't know my Twitter account was still active. I am not a liar which you want me to be soooo bad, so you can portray me in a way that will discredit my father. There's no other reason for your constant snooping.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So if I say something that is not true, and the other person knows that it is not true, and knows that I know it is not true, and I know that they know it's not true, and I know that they know that I know it's not true, then I'm not deceiving them, and it's OK.

Wow, dude. That's, like, waaay meta.

[LadyShea]

BTW, if I were you I would check to see if they had put me on a recurring automatic monthly charge. That's the most likely explanation for them continuing to Tweet for you several months after you supposedly paid them for only one month.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW, if I were you I would check to see if they had put me on a recurring automatic monthly charge. That's the most likely explanation for them continuing to Tweet for you several months after you supposedly paid them for only one month.

I already checked, but thanks for the reminder. They offer other services that you pay monthly (that was what the $5 was for, but I had stopped the recurring fee). Tweeting to advertise is free but I didn't realize it went on indefinitely. I still don't consider myself a liar. I presently am not marketing the book on Twitter in any active way because I decided not to go that route after experiencing what it was like. Disclaimer: I may change my mind (this is so you won't call me a liar in the future)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Disclaimer: I may change my mind (this is so you won't call me a liar in the future)

Too late.

[davidm]

And now … The Seymour and Peacegirl Show!

*Zany theme music*

Starring:

Pimp Brezhnev as Seymour Lessans




Catlady as Peacegirl




And Troy McClure as Troy McClure




Let’s begin our show!








































*Cue zany theme music, cut to commercial*

[The Lone Ranger]

So, you admit that you lie when it suits you, but you don't think that this should be considered lying when you do it.

Well, aren't you just the perfect little hypocrite?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, you admit that you lie when it suits you, but you don't think that this should be considered lying when you do it.

Well, aren't you just the perfect little hypocrite?

I don't think "little" applies, I have seen a photo of her.

And using "perfect" and "hypocrite" referring to the same person, does seem to create a bit of conflict.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And now … The Seymour and Peacegirl Show!

*Zany theme music*

Starring:

Pimp Brezhnev as Seymour Lessans




Catlady as Peacegirl




And Troy McClure as Troy McClure




Let’s begin our show!








































*Cue zany theme music, cut to commercial*

You are so confused David, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Just like you were confused when Lessans said, "we are compelled, of our own free will..." as being contradictory, here too, you think it is contradictory when light travels at 81/2 minutes to reach Earth yet we can see instantly in the efferent account. You haven't paid attention as to why this is possible in this model. All my father said is that we cannot see each other until light reaches Earth. He didn't say anything about light having to reach the camera for us to see an object that is within optical range. If you used your noodle just a little bit you would see that cameras and eyes have to work in exactly the same way. The only difference is that the image is developed on film in real time, whereas the eyes see the image (or object) in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, you admit that you lie when it suits you, but you don't think that this should be considered lying when you do it.

Well, aren't you just the perfect little hypocrite?

I don't recall the last time I ever fudged anything except in here. I have no need to Lone Ranger. I weaseled out of being pressed against the wall when I hadn't thoroughly figured things out. I didn't want you to lose interest on account of my inability to answer your questions. None of this negates the claim of efferent vision. Why didn't you answer me when I mentioned an experiment that could help prove that dogs cannot identify their masters without other cues. Was it inconvenient?

[The Lone Ranger]

There have been many such experiments performed, with numerous non-human species. You've been given descriptions of and links to many of these studies. On more than one occasion, you've flat-out said that you would not read them. On other occasions, you dismissed such studies as being "fatally flawed" even after admitting that you a.) had not actually read them (skimming the Abstract does not count), and b.) could not actually identify any flaws, other than that they produced results that you did not like.


So, that makes you a liar and a hypocrite.

Why on Earth am I going to waste my time providing you with more links to experiments that you will not read, but will nonetheless insist were "flawed," because they don't produce the results you want?



And for the record, if you want to earn even the slightest degree of respect for yourself and for Lessans, then lying is the very worst strategy that you could employ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There have been many such experiments performed, with numerous non-human species. You've been given descriptions of and links to many of these studies. On more than one occasion, you've flat-out said that you would not read them. On other occasions, you dismissed such studies as being "fatally flawed" even after admitting that you a.) had not actually read them (skimming the Abstract does not count), and b.) could not actually identify any flaws, other than that they produced results that you did not like.


So, that makes you a liar and a hypocrite.

Why on Earth am I going to waste my time providing you with more links to experiments that you will not read, but will nonetheless insist were "flawed," because they don't produce the results you want?

I have not seen the experiment I am asking for. Why are you floundering Lone Ranger? I don't want to read experiments. I want to see them on video. I saw one where the dog went to his owner who was wearing a familiar hat. There is a fine line between an object that a dog can recognize versus just a face. I know dogs can recognize other dogs from far away due to their shape and gait, but can they recognize one dog from another, or one human from another by sight alone?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And for the record, if you want to earn even the slightest degree of respect for yourself and for Lessans, then lying is the very worst strategy that you could employ.

You're probably right. Now back to where any of this negates Lessans' claim...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused David, it's laughable. Just like you were confused when Lessans said, "we are compelled, of our own free will..." as being contradictory, here too, you think it is contradictory when light travels at 81/2 minutes to reach Earth yet we can see instantly in the efferent account.

It is contradictory to say that light can be somewhere it has not yet got to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't paid attention as to why this is possible in this model.

You haven't worked out yet how it could be possible in your 'model'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All my father said is that we cannot see each other until light reaches Earth. He didn't say anything about light having to reach the camera for us to see an object that is within optical range. If you used your noodle just a little bit you would see that cameras and eyes have to work in exactly the same way.

And we can explain both working in the same afferent way in delayed time, but we can't explain either if we insist on them working efferently in real-time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that the image is developed on film in real time, whereas the eyes see the image (or object) in real time.

Both of these require light from the newly ignited (i.e. not previously emitting any light) Sun to be at the retina/film instantaneously. How did it get there?

You know this is impossible. That's why you refuse to discuss it. Continuing to pretend it makes sense is just another form of lying. You are not being honest with yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not seen the experiment I am asking for. Why are you floundering Lone Ranger?

You're probably right. Now back to where any of this negates Lessans' claim...

They all negate Lessans claims, now all you need to do is study them, till you understand them. We'll take agreement as a sign of your understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused David, it's laughable. Just like you were confused when Lessans said, "we are compelled, of our own free will..." as being contradictory, here too, you think it is contradictory when light travels at 81/2 minutes to reach Earth yet we can see instantly in the efferent account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is contradictory to say that light can be somewhere it has not yet got to.

You have absolutely no understanding of the efferent model because if you did you would see why seeing in reverse of what is believed would produce the results my father claimed.

Originally Posted by SteveB

You haven't paid attention as to why this is possible in this model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't worked out yet how it could be possible in your 'model'.

Did I miss something? I didn't know my name was Steve. Post over. You're digging your own hole.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

They all negate Lessans claims, now all you need to do is study them, till you understand them. We'll take agreement as a sign of your understanding.

Go back and study why removing all licensing in the new world creates greater responsibility. If you can't do that, then there's no use talking to you. Remember thedoc, you're on thin ice and you're playing me right now. I know it's only a matter of time before you're back on ignore.