A revolution in thought

[But]

[Stephen Maturin]

Once again, the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy has rescued a treasure from exile! I fully favor setting up a separate entity to hold the new copyright. Such protection is necessary, lest a world in need have no recourse when peacegirl butchers this wonder and tries to monetize whatever is left after her ham-fisted butchery is complete.

#TrueStewardPublications

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

This is so exciting, dear. Does this mean that you now actually have the copyright to the Authentic Text? And that it will be republished with all the good stuff restored, like about that one guy whose dick is its own phallic symbol?

I trust that the annotations will include at least distillations of the many in-depth explications of the text in the secret forums.

Correct! This new critical edition (copyright to be held by the entity provisionally named True Steward Publications) will include the 1962 Authentic Text, absolutely verbatim.

I am evaluating other options to make this Authentic Text available free of charge to all - for the True Steward has no need or want for lucre.

[ChuckF]

Heads up, ladies!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Heads up, ladies!

You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

[ChuckF]

Readers of the new and authoritative critical edition of the Authentic Text will be able to evaluate that for themselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Readers of the new and authoritative critical edition of the Authentic Text will be able to evaluate that for themselves.

Yes, and hopefully they will make an effort to understand what the author was actually trying to say rather than projecting their own meaning onto it based on presupposition and bias. You, as a confirmed eisegete, are no scholar.

[ChuckF]

I am compelled of my own free will to affirm the mathematical, scientific, and undeniable reality that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

More exciting news coming soon!

Don’t forget to check the private forums for my critical analysis of buttsecks in the Golden Age - new insights from 1962.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I am compelled of my own free will to affirm the mathematical, scientific, and undeniable reality that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

More exciting news coming soon!

Don’t forget to check the private forums for my critical analysis of buttsecks in the Golden Age - new insights from 1962.

No wonder you focus on this one chapter without even trying to understand its true meaning. You can't get your mind off of sex because of your own dark desires!

[ChuckF]

I actually think there are some interesting observations to be made on how Griswold and Eisenstadt affected the Author’s views, as he complained less about having to wear rubbers or stick to doing butt-stuff to date rape victims in later editions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I actually think there are some interesting observations to be made on how Griswold and Eisenstadt affected the Author’s views, as he complained less about having to wear rubbers or stick to doing butt-stuff to date rape victims in later editions.

Your motivation to turn this book into a joke is a reflection on you, not the book. This will backfire on you as people begin to actually study the work, which you haven't done. You are an imposter and a fraud. But continue on... this may help the breakthrough I've been hoping for.

[Stephen Maturin]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Heads up, ladies!

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I actually think there are some interesting observations to be made on how Griswold and Eisenstadt affected the Author’s views, as he complained less about having to wear rubbers or stick to doing butt-stuff to date rape victims in later editions.

It would come as little surprise that Lessans was a substantive due process aficionado, at least as to matters of the wang.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

As always, ChuckF is the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy.

As always, peacegirl is totally incompetent, even as to simple matters such as message board mechanics.

God definitely made the right call here.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

You can post whatever excerpts of your worthless Corrupted Text you want. That is your business, not mine. Your Corrupted Text must be rejected, for it is Corrupt.

This evening, I'll post the entire chapter of the Authentic Text, to appropriately contextualize "When a girl accepts a date she is extending an invitation, and if she is not prepared to go all the way without contraception she had better not accept."

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

peacegirl...do I even need to point out the utter hilarity of this post?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. . . . [E]isegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text.

The author of that Wikipedia article is clearly familiar with the Corrupted Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Heads up, ladies!

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Heads up, ladies!

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Heads up, ladies!

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation. For now, I will post a small excerpt to give the reader a better understanding of what this chapter is about than the sentence Chuck posted for lulz.

The ultimate problem of love before marriage revolves around one
point — how to prevent all the hurt of unrequited romance,
consequently, the solution is how to compel all boys and girls to fall
mutually in love with the very first person dated. This appears to be
quite a problem, doesn’t it? How this is accomplished, how these boys
and girls are compelled to have this mutual desire for marriage with
their first date will be demonstrated as we proceed. Let us begin by
defining the term ‘marriage’ which is nothing other than a mutual
desire to indulge in sexual intercourse for the purpose of bearing a
child. It is not the granting of a right to indulge in this sexual
relation; it is not the obligation that each has to the other; it has
nothing whatever to do with a religious ceremony and exchange of
rings; it is only this mutual desire to beget a child as you will soon
have verified.

Someone who took what I said out of context
remarked, “Did you say it is not morally wrong for a girl to have
sexual intercourse before marriage? Isn’t that a terrible thing to teach
children? I can just hear what my mother and father would say to
this, and what religion would say.” My answer to her was that I am
going to put a mathematical end to all premarital sexual intercourse
so what difference does it make if I say it isn’t morally wrong? What
difference does it make if I say it is perfectly all right for an individual
to steal, commit murder, and declare war if he wants to do these
things just as long as I can demonstrate how to prevent his desire
from arising to do them? Furthermore, suppose the effort to correct
these so-called sins is partially responsible for their existence, then
isn’t it obvious that to say something is morally wrong, is wrong, since
this ends up engendering the very hurt our moralists are trying to
prevent? If it gives the evangelists great satisfaction in making
speeches to show man what is wrong with himself, how is it possible
for them to be satisfied with knowledge that their speeches, the very
thing that gives them great satisfaction, will no longer be required?

I am not implying that when parents, teachers, and preachers advise
a girl that it is wrong for her to do certain things before marriage that
they are not sincere. They are very sincere. A doctor is also sincere
when he tries his best to make a patient well, but it cannot give him
satisfaction to learn that someone else can do a much better job than
he is able to do and it certainly cannot satisfy him to learn that he is
part of the cause he makes efforts to correct. His sincerity is
extremely limited and can exist only under certain conditions. If a
psychiatrist lost all his patients overnight as if by miracle, if a rabbi
lost his congregation, could they possibly be elated over this news even
though the very things they have been trying to accomplish are now
brought about in a superior manner? Therefore, their sincerity is not
sincerely sincere and that is why this presents such a problem because
it is this group of learned people that are mostly affected by the
transition.

However, because your mind may not be adequately
attuned to the perception of mathematical relations, I should like to
put the horse before the cart by asking you several questions. What
is more important — that a boy and girl get a license to indulge their
sexual appetite, have a religious ceremony, the blessing of a
theologian, etc., or that they fall mutually in love and live happily ever
after? What is more important to the parents, the health and
happiness of their children, or the moral code? If you were given a
choice of marrying the person you love with the certain knowledge
that you are sure to find unhappiness, perhaps be made a cuckold and
end up getting a divorce, or given an opportunity to live as man and
wife (although not the way we understand the term marriage in our
present world) and instead of unhappiness the greatest happiness
imaginable would be your destiny all through life, are you given a
choice? Wouldn’t it be an insult to man’s intelligence if we criticized
and blamed a marriage celebrating half a century of genuine
happiness, a marriage in which there was never a thought of another
sexual partner, a marriage where there was never an argument, just
because this young boy and girl decided to get married without a
license, without the ceremony and blessing of a rabbi or priest,
without the exchange of rings? The fact that you criticize such
happiness because this couple did not conform to a moral code is
equivalent to criticizing someone who plays a perfect hand of bridge
because he failed to have the cards cut by the person on his right, or
equivalent to someone criticizing this book which reveals only the
perception of mathematical, undeniable relations because he feels that
a comma is in the wrong place.

It is understandable why a jeweler would not like a change that
affects his business because not buying rings associated with
engagements and marriage would certainly decrease his profit; and it
is understandable why a priest and rabbi would not like any change
because they play one of the leading spiritual roles in the nuptial
drama aside from receiving perhaps a gratuity of some sort which is
also a pleasant ritual. It is understandable why those who are
accustomed to criticizing, blaming, and judging others for not
conforming to the moral code would not like to see a change because
this would deprive them of the enormous satisfaction they get in
condemning what, in their eyes, is wrong. Consequently, it is of the
utmost importance to place the horse before the cart so that these
unconsciously ignorant people who have been blindly leading their
followers in accordance with God’s will can at last see for themselves
what they have been doing. Obviously, since no one likes to give up
what is a source of satisfaction unless there is a still greater
satisfaction to replace this, or unless in a new juxtaposition of
alternatives it becomes the worse choice, we can only look to a boy and
girl themselves for the great change about to take place. They are the
only ones involved in this game of love. The sexes will be given no
choice as to how they must act towards each other because they will
know, beyond a shadow of doubt, which is the better alternative.

There are definite rules to this game which have never been
understood, but these we are compelled to obey as each person
instantly recognizes their mathematical veracity. The only thing
required is to bear constantly in mind what has been revealed in the
first two chapters, that man’s will is not free and what this means. To
fully understand and appreciate this fantastic metamorphosis — all
premarital relations, all adultery, and all divorce are coming to an end
out of mathematical necessity. How this is accomplished, how these
boys and girls are compelled to have this mutual desire for marriage
with their first date is marvelous to behold and mathematically
undeniable. Now put on your thinking caps and follow me carefully.
Let us observe, once again, what takes place in our present
environment in order to understand the solution.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation.

You have no idea what that sentence even means in the context that it was written. You are an individual who practices eisegesis which makes you an eisegete.

Eisegesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/ is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

I, AS THE TRUE STEWARD, will post excerpts of this chapter, in context, so people are not fooled by your false motives and failed interpretation. For now, I will post a small excerpt to give the reader a better understanding of what this chapter is about than the sentence Chuck posted for lulz.

This, dear lurkers, is why the 100% nonreligious God chose ChuckF as the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy. In terms of competence and fidelity, Chuck is a brand new Lamborghini Huracán. peacegirl is a 1985 Yugo with a busted transmission and a cracked crankcase.

[Stephen Maturin]

I am very much looking forward to seeing how the 1962 Authentic Text deals with central Golden Age topics such as homo-sexuals, barnyard boohogs, and sleeping arrangements.

[But]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Heads up, ladies!

"The wisdom here is amazing"

[Stephen Maturin]

Seymour Lessans was a humble man, But. If he was wrong about the amazing wisdom thing, he would have admitted it. Since he never admitted error in that regard, it necessarily follows that "[t]he wisdom here is amazing" is a mathematical, scientific and undeniable truth.

[ChuckF]

The True Steward of the Authentic Text delivers, as always. I am trying a new way of presenting entire chapters at once, and it makes for a long image, so I am putting it under a spoiler tag to keep it from distorting the page.

Chapter 3: The World of Love.

In my view, the most notable variance between the Authentic Text (presented below) and the Corrupted Text (which must be rejected, because it is Corrupt) is that the Corrupted Text malevolently scrubs out an important element of the Golden Age: that it will be an age of good, teenage, bareback P-in-V, with definitely no butt stuff, you guys, seriously. We learn on page 49 that buttsecks is, well, blame-y. Also, condoms, being incompatible with sexual satisfaction, are right out: "Since the meaning of love before copulation takes place is the possibility of sexual satisfaction, how is it mathematically possible for a boy to desire taking out a girl who does not appeal to him in terms of sexual intercourse without contraception..." (n.b. evolution in Author attitudes with the advent of female birth control, which enabled good wholesome teenaged barebacking to climax anew - perhaps the Eisenstadt WAS the Inception of the Golden Age?!)

show spoiler

[Stephen Maturin]

It looks like Z-Man Miller isn't the only megagenius who collaborated with Hermes Trismegistus.