A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is due to the fact that their position is weak, or they wouldn't have to resort to these kinds of remarks.

This from the person who resorted to unprovoked vitriol on her very first day here.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I talk about warmed-over nonsense babble that speaks more about your relationship with your father than anything in the real world.

Lessans wrote that he worked 8 hours per day for 15 years on his discoveries. That plus the job plus sleep plus billiards -- an activity at which Lessans excelled -- left little to no time for anything else.

I suppose it's possible that Lessans loved his children, in whatever pitiful, severely attenuated way narcissists are capable of such things, but he clearly didn't like them. Lessans was working on his discoveries during peacegirl's formative years. The only way peacegirl could get Seymour's attention, the fatherly attention she so desperately craved, was to immerse herself in Seymour's world.

Like many religious belief systems, peacegirl's unshakable belief in her father's discovery has its roots in unmet needs. Of course, there's something else at work here: if Lessans was wrong about anything, then all that time he spent working on his discoveries and ignoring his family was for nothing. That would be too much for peacegirl to bear.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This author made this discovery back in 1959 and it took him years to understand the significance and magnitude of what he had uncovered.

First, it is imperative that you understand why man's will is not free, according to the author. Secondly, you will need to understand the other principle that leads to the core of his discovery. You will then be able to follow the extension of this principle into all areas of human interaction.

You say it took the author years to understand the significance of his discovery, yet you became defensive and hostile when members here didn't agree and accept the ideas in the book immediately. And then you claim that the author was better educated and more intelligent than anyone here. That seems just a bit contradictory, that you would expect that we would immediately grasp and accept the claims in the book but it took the author years to get it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not surprising to me that a dog would know when another dog is angry by his growl and his snarl where his teeth are showing. If a dog sees a snarl even without the sound of his growl, he would probably back off. As far as dogs being able to match a human emotion in a picture with the sound of a person's voice, I have my doubts that these experiments are accurate. Regardless, this has nothing to do with being able to identify familiar individuals by sight alone and it most certainly does not prove Lessans wrong. For the lurkers in here, watch the vitriol that follows this post and you'll see that this is all they can offer because they have nothing else. This is due to the fact that their position is weak, or they wouldn't have to resort to these kinds of remarks.

No you doofus - human faces and human voices. It would be pretty unsurprising if a dog could spot visual signals in their own species.

The amazing thing is that they match the right sounds up to the right kinda faces, without any prior training or getting used to the test. They are matching angry voices to angry faces happy voices to happy faces.

They are apparently able to read expressions.

So in terms of your theory, does that mean that they have a concept of "happy" that they are projecting on to peoples faces?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This from the person who resorted to unprovoked vitriol on her very first day here.

Why aren't you listening to me TLR? I gave my reasons for why I acted the way I did, and you totally ignore them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You say it took the author years to understand the significance of his discovery, yet you became defensive and hostile when members here didn't agree and accept the ideas in the book immediately. And then you claim that the author was better educated and more intelligent than anyone here. That seems just a bit contradictory, that you would expect that we would immediately grasp and accept the claims in the book but it took the author years to get it.

You're ignorant and I would ignore you but I have to let people know how ignorant you are. I have no interest in discussing anything with you at all. You have an agenda. You want to be the one who stayed the course and proved me wrong. You're a total ignoramous. I don't normally use these expletives, but they're appropriate in this case. You will go on blabbering and blabbering in the hope that your summary of this discovery is accepted as fact. For anyone who listens to you and agrees, they are not the ones to read this work. I expect a post from you right about now talking about how wrong Lessans was and how crazy it would be for anyone to pay attention. What ashame considering that this knowledge will bring peace on earth!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No you doofus - human faces and human voices. It would be pretty unsurprising if a dog could spot visual signals in their own species.

The amazing thing is that they match the right sounds up to the right kinda faces, without any prior training or getting used to the test. They are matching angry voices to angry faces happy voices to happy faces.

They are apparently able to read expressions.

So in terms of your theory, does that mean that they have a concept of "happy" that they are projecting on to peoples faces?

Are you calling me a doofus? Forget it Vivisectus. We're done!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans wrote that he worked 8 hours per day for 15 years on his discoveries. That plus the job plus sleep plus billiards -- an activity at which Lessans excelled -- left little to no time for anything else.

I suppose it's possible that Lessans loved his children, in whatever pitiful, severely attenuated way narcissists are capable of such things, but he clearly didn't like them. Lessans was working on his discoveries during peacegirl's formative years. The only way peacegirl could get Seymour's attention, the fatherly attention she so desperately craved, was to immerse herself in Seymour's world.

Like many religious belief systems, peacegirl's unshakable belief in her father's discovery has its roots in unmet needs. Of course, there's something else at work here: if Lessans was wrong about anything, then all that time he spent working on his discoveries and ignoring his family was for nothing. That would be too much for peacegirl to bear.

The sad part of all this is this IS one in a million. You have a belief that he was wrong, and that I was a believer based on sexual abuse. You're nuts Maturin. You are so wrong that it makes me laugh. I don't get upset anymore because I see the nutters out there that you attribute to everyone but yourself. Truthfully, you're one of them. Please don't respond. I'm so not into this kind of debate. It will go nowhere except to falsely give bravado to the loudest mouth.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why aren't you listening to me TLR? I gave my reasons for why I acted the way I did, and you totally ignore them.

You insulted people who had not insulted or belittled you. At all. And within 24 hours of signing up.

By your own standards, that's the behavior of someone who knows their position is weak.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You insulted people who had not insulted or belittled you. At all. And within 24 hours of signing up.

By your own standards, that's the behavior of someone who knows their position is weak.

L.O.L. Weak is quite generous in describing Peacegirl's position, but then you were always a bit too kind to her. In truth she has no position to defend, and therefore no defense of that position. If you read back over the thread she has never provided a valid defense of any her fathers ideas, she has only re-posted his silly ramblings from his joke of a book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No you doofus - human faces and human voices. It would be pretty unsurprising if a dog could spot visual signals in their own species.

The amazing thing is that they match the right sounds up to the right kinda faces, without any prior training or getting used to the test. They are matching angry voices to angry faces happy voices to happy faces.

They are apparently able to read expressions.

So in terms of your theory, does that mean that they have a concept of "happy" that they are projecting on to peoples faces?

Peacegirl only reads what she wants to read, and doesn't see what she doesn't want to see. Peacegirl doesn't want to see anything that contradicts her fathers joke of a book, so she has a kind of blindness.

The Flamingos - I Only Have Eyes For You - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The sad part of all this is this IS one in a million. You have a belief that he was wrong, and that I was a believer based on sexual abuse.

It will go nowhere except to falsely give bravado to the loudest mouth.

Yes there are a million Nutters out there and your father was one of them. As far as your father being wrong and that he abused you, the proof is in this thread, along with all the other forums you have been on.

You are certainly trying to be the loudest mouth on this or any forum, you just won't shut up when you are shown to be wrong.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a belief that he was wrong, and that I was a believer based on sexual abuse.

No, I think you became a believer because the only way to get your father's attention was to show interest in the only thing that interested him. The fact that you jumped straight to sexual abuse is ... disturbing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't respond.

I'm responding, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm so not into this kind of debate.

Your behavior conclusively demonstrates otherwise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here they are again - those questions you have now lied twice about. They do apply, and you have never answered them.

...and again.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No he has not proven anything. It's all circumstantial.

No, it is exact. 2 Pictures of the same event, both with timing information. And the times differ. And do not forget TLR found this not as 'the proof' that instantaneous vision does not exist. There have been done endless experiments, there is endless experience, that what we see arrived at our eyes with the speed of light, because we see light with our eyes. But TLRs pictures show it to you. You cannot talk around it: it is there. Only by proposing a conspiracy of scientists, or by stating that those stupid scientists that can send space probes to all the planets are not able to synchronize their clocks, you can explain this away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have kept an open mind and I still believe Lessans was right in spite of the "apparent" proof of afferent vision. Until his claim is tested thoroughly (which it has not), I will maintain that he was right.

It really does not need any tests any more: it is an established, scientific fact. It is not based on a few single experiments, as you seem to think. You have no idea about science, about how science works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were not here when I addressed Spacemonkey's questions.

Unless you give a link to these answers, I will consider this as lying.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

No, I think you became a believer because the only way to get your father's attention was to show interest in the only thing that interested him. The fact that you jumped straight to sexual abuse is ... disturbing.

Yeah... I noticed that too.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you calling me a doofus? Forget it Vivisectus. We're done!

Doofus? Such language!

Oh, please. You're not offended at all (and it's laughable you expect us to believe you are). You're just saying that because, as usual, your nonsense about vision has all fallen apart when we actually look at the real world instead of relying on your father's armchair speculation. And you can't stand to admit it, so you'd rather lie and cheat your way out of having to back up any of this bullshit you spout.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you calling me a doofus? Forget it Vivisectus. We're done!

Yeah. You were being a goose: of course this was not a test to see if dogs can spot a snarl in a different dog. D'uh!

If we accept that dogs can read faces, what is going on according to your theory? Do the dogs have a word for "happy" that they project? If not, what is going on and how are these dogs able to match angry voices to photographs of angry faces?

[Vivisectus]

Is doofus more insulting than I think it is? I thought it was really mild. But then again you can get into trouble if you are communicating in a second language: you can be pretty fluent and still not quite understand colloquialisms, sayings, and insults. There is also the problem that quite a lot of your examples will come from movies, which are not always really representative of how the language is used in every day reality.

For instance, someone had to explain to me that "twat" and "twit" were very different kinds of insults. Until then, I had been using them both in the same way you use "twit". Criiiiiiinge!

[Vivisectus]

And that reminds me, I had the same problem in Germany. They use the word "Geil" as slang, in which case it means "cool". But the everyday meaning of the word is actually "Horny".

This was explained to me, very kindly, by a German girlfriends mother when I was 16 or so. Mortifying experience.

[Dragar]

I'm pretty sure 'doofus' is very, very mild.

And yes, 'twit' and 'twat' are very different words!

Now, rate the following:

1) Pillock
2) Wazzock
3) Plonker
4) Berk
5) Wally

Good luck!

[Vivisectus]

Tough one!

I sometimes use Plonker and Pillock, and rarely Berk.

From more mild to less mild, I would go

Plonker
Berk
Pillock
Wazzock
Wally

But that is because I have no idea about Wazzock or Wally.

[Dragar]

Interesting.

I'd have rated 'pillock' much more insulting - easily at the top (I guess your bottom) of the list. It's something you might actually hear someone use in anger.

The BBC had 'plonker' regularly used in "Only Fools and Horses" back in the early '80s - it's a very mild word, and probably one of the least insulting thing there.

'Wally' is the sort of thing your mother might call you if you forgot your lunch as a child (about as insulting as 'silly sausage').

'Wazzock' is just mysterious - I'm not sure anyone knows its true origins, but it's so silly sounding it deserves a spot barely worse than Wally, maybe on par with plonker.

'Berk' is maybe the hardest to call, because I think it's pretty regional. It's worse than 'wally', 'plonker' and probably 'wazzock'. I think it's quite dated now, but it's not a polite thing to call someone ("daft Berk" is how it's normally used). It comes from rhyming slang "Berkeley Hunt" or "Berkshire Hunt", apparently, which should be enough for you suss out the (crass) meaning of the word.

[Vivisectus]

Thats funny - and that is from a foreign speaker who has been living in english-speaking countries for a decade. I really haven't a clue about several of those expressions, and some of the ones I DO know I do not necessarily use correctly.

I asked Mrs Sectus, who speaks irish english and she came back with

1) Pillock
2) Wazzock
3) Plonker
4) Berk
5) Wally

rated from worst to mildest. But she never heard of Wazzock.

[ceptimus]

Berk might seem mild now, but it's rhyming slang - Berkeley Hunt - so originally it was just a different way of calling someone a cunt.

[The Lone Ranger]

That puts a whole new spin on How to Train Your Dragon ...