A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I appreciate your presentation,

No you don't. You've demonstrated over and over and over again that you have no respect at all for anything that doesn't conform to your unsupported, illogical, and indeed disproved claims.

.. but I am neither arrogant or a liar just because I'm trying to understand whether it is possible that Lessans could be right.

No, you're arrogant because you're an ignoramous but you insist on "correcting" people who're vastly more knowledgeable on the subject matter than you'll ever be -- and without making any effort to find out if your "corrections" are the slightest bit accurate. And you're a liar because you've repeatedly lied in this overlong masturbatory exercise of yours.

You are not duty bound to name call no matter how much I irk you.

I'm duty-bound to point out your lies and your willful ignorance, and that you're promoting thoroughly-disproved nonsense.

I'm sure you'd fail me if I was your student because I would not regurgitate what you want to hear.

If you proved as arrogant, dishonest, incurious and impervious to evidence in the classroom as you have been in this thread, then I have no doubt at all that you'd indeed fail the class, no matter who the teacher might be.

You would burn me at the stake alive if you could, based on your total out of character reaction. I am not going to be the brunt of your anger.

Congratulations! I honestly think that's the first time I've ever felt the need to use that particular smiley -- ever.

Oh, here's another word to add to your vocabulary: projection.

To say that you are ashamed of your species because of my effort to understand sight belies your intention in here. That is not what a caring teacher says to anyone.

Again, if you proved as arrogant, dishonest, incurious and impervious to evidence in the classroom as you have been in this thread, then I would have every reason (and every right) to say such a thing. And stop lying: you've made absolutely no effort to understand anything. Indeed, you've gone to great lengths to avoid learning or understanding anything new.

You have a responsibility to stay calm, and not be defensive.

I'm perfectly calm, and I'm not at all defensive. I'm offended by your dishonesty and your willful ignorance. Again, there's a difference.

Actually, I have no idea why you're here because, according to you, I'm not educable. So why are you here?

Because, as I've repeatedly pointed out, I'm here to provide educational opportunities for others. [I had, like probably everyone else, given you the benefit of the doubt to begin with, but you quickly proved to be uneducable. That doesn't mean that others in the thread can't learn something interesting/useful.] And also because I feel duty-bound to point out your lies and misinformation.

You need to chill out or we can't talk anymore. I will continue to research the ciliary muscle to see if there was any validity to what was posted.

Suuuure you will ...


That having been said, I'm beginning to think that you really are just an incredibly persistent troll. It's difficult to believe that someone as aggressively ignorant and as arrogant as you seem to be could possibly function in normal society.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's difficult to believe that someone as aggressively ignorant and as arrogant as you seem to be could possibly function in normal society.

Just what makes you think that she does? Whoever is taking care of her probably thought a computer with internet access would be good therapy to intigrate her back into normal society. - WRONG! Did you know she has imaginary children and grandchildren?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are ABC, and another group of AGB, allowed.

You know that's wrong because A is twice with B.

[peacegirl]

Smooth muscle

Smooth muscle is the least specialized of the three varieties of muscle. It is nonstriated (lacks
cross-banding pattern, or striations, found in skeletal muscle), involuntary (innervated by the
autonomic nervous system and thus not under the control of the will), and functions largely as a
regulator of the internal environment. It is found in the wall of hollow viscera (except the heart),
such as in the gastrointestinal tract, uterus, urinary bladder, and blood vessels. It is also found in
association with hair follicles, the dartos of the scrotum, and the eye (i.e.; the iris and ciliary body).

Smooth muscle contracts slowly and tires slowly.

MUSCLE

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;938783]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what this reminds me of? There was a old wives tale that passed along from generation to generation that said a roast of a certain size had to have the end cut off before cooking. It became a deeply held belief, and because people just accepted what they were told, they never questioned the reason for this. They just believed that anyone who would even think of not cutting the end of the roast off was defying what was held to be sacred and not to be tampered with. Then one day a family member found an old trunk, and in that trunk she found the real reason the end of the roast off was cut off all these centuries ago. What was the reason? The grandmother's pot was too small for her roast, so she cut the end off to make it fit. What's the moral of the story? People often do what a previous generation did, or believe what has been handed down to them without really knowing the truth.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's such an arrogant and aggressively-stupid thing to say that it makes me ashamed for my species.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was a true story. Take it as you will.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's either an old wive's tale or it's true; it can't be both.

You're right. It can't be both. I am really not sure, but I thought it was a true story. Maybe it was just a wive's tale.

I thought it was funny. Sometimes people can be fallible. I don't care what you think of me Lone Ranger. You're not god either. I respect your knowledge,

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No you don't, so you might as well be honest and admit it. What you have been absolutely consistent about is your utter contempt for every bit of knowledge, no matter how thoroughly-tested -- that contradicts your father's claims.

That's not true. I have no contempt for anyone. But people have contempt for Lessans. Why can't you stay calm and consider that he might have been right? You, as a teacher and scientist, know that theories aren't always perfect even when something looks absolutely foolproof. Yes, it's true that there has to be more empirical studies based on his hypothesis (used this word so I don't get burned at the stake), so what's the problem? I'm not saying accept something that contradicts science, unless it's proven.

... but you need to respect mine

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The moment you demonstrate some, I will happily do so.

I respected you until you started yelling and calling me names. I still respect your knowledge, but please understand that I'm not here as a troll. I'm here to find out if he is right, and the only way this can be done is with objectivity, but people here are too invested in their own worldview to even give him a chance.

and if there is disagreement, it needs to be investigated, not shot down as if I'm an ignorant person.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You are an ignorant person -- profoundly so.

I am ignorant of many things; but I'm also enlightened about many things. Please don't use that word to, once again, try to make it appear as if I'm stupid, because that's the game you're playing and it's dangerous as a scientist to do this.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But that's not why I object to you. I object to your willful ignorance, and to your arrogance. And to your dishonesty.

I am not willfully ignorant; I'm definitely not arrogant, and neither was Lessans (he was a quiet and humble man); and I'm not dishonest in any sense of the word. And I'm surely not an ignoramus, which is a very nasty derogatory word that I did not deserve to be called.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As a scientist and an educator, I am duty-bound to oppose your promotion of willful ignorance, irrationalism, anti-science attitudes, and outright lies.

You are duty bound to teach what you know, granted. But you are also duty bound as a scientist to step back and resist the impulse to attack before all the facts are in, even if you believe with every fiber in your body that Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should all be reading this book as if this world depends on it; which it does.

Originally Posted by erimir

Hey peacegirl, I think that the fate of the world depends on people adopting Islam as their religion. Would you please give Mohammed the benefit of the doubt and read the entire Qur'an and then get back me?

You give people the benefit of the doubt. An astute observation (although it needs more evidence) is not the same as reading the Bible or the Qur'an which are religious in nature, not scientific.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might be well-developed, BUT PARTS OF IT ARE INCONCLUSIVE (I used that word instead of 'wrong' so people dont' go nuts in here)!!!

Originally Posted by erimir

Which parts? You have given no evidence except for your daddy's assertions. Others have given peer-reviewed scientific studies and detailed explanations of how sight works.

Your response is to simply say "Nuh-uh!"

You keep asking for the benefit of the doubt, but you haven't shown the slightest bit of respect for the evidence that others have presented, meanwhile you haven't shown any actual evidence.

I'm trying to. He said that the scientists believe that the reason an infant can't see immediately is because of undeveloped eye muscles. If that's true, he would be wrong. But if the ciliary muscles which control the ability to focus, are involuntary, then we can assume that there might be more to it. It would follow that the brain may be more involved than thought. It could be postulated that the brain needs sensory stimulation in order to focus the ciliary muscles so the external world can be seen. That's the theory, and the post I gave does support Lessans' ideas.

THE BRAIN DOES NOT CONSTRUCT AN IMAGE. THE BRAIN SEES THE PICTURE BASED ON THE LIGHT'S WAVELENGTHS. The brain is able to see the picture as a whole, because the pixels are close together. I have no idea where you got the idea that I believed the photon contains the image of the whole object. Now this is really nutty.

Originally Posted by erimir

You said that the light doesn't contain the image, as if this is what people were claiming.

Each ray of light only gives you information about the color composition of a single point (a pixel, basically, but much more high resolution than a TV, obviously), your retina receives all these points of color which enter the pupil at differing angles depending on where the light was reflected from (this is a simplification since there can be other things that affect the light, but the light is basically arranged according to how the objects you're looking at are arranged). Your brain is thus able to assemble these "pixels" into a coherent image.

I am in full agreement here. This doesn't contradict Lessans' theory.

Originally Posted by erimir

This is all very well understood, and I don't see why you have an objection.

I don't have an objection to this.

Originally Posted by erimir

Your questioning of the fact that sight is a sense is equivalent to suggesting that we don't really need oxygen to breathe.

That's why I'm having such a problem. But you need to understand that I am not disputing that we see based on light's wavelengths or photoreceptors in the eye, or cones and rods that are needed to see color.

Originally Posted by erimir

Nobody is going to "admit" that there's something off with that theory either, and the fact that we're all in agreement is not because there's anything cult-like or hive-mind-like going on. It's just that it's correct.

Maybe it's just that people think I'm disputing things that I'm not. Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding.

If you believe that, then you need to take psychology 101.

Originally Posted by erimir

Unlike you, I actually have taken science courses, including psychology (and in particular, social psychology).

I have also taken pscyhology courses, many of them. You aren't going to one up me, sorry.

Originally Posted by erimir

The fact that an entire group agrees is in no way evidence that there's any kind of disordered thinking going on. We all agree that the tides go in, the tides go out (never a miscommunication) but this doesn't mean we're a moon cult, it's simply the truth.

I'm not saying you're actually a cult, but it is a psychological dynamic going on. I just hope that the individuals that make up this group will not give up on this discovery when this thread is over, because nothing has proven him wrong or right yet.

This is very cult-like, and it's taught me a lot. As much as you all think you have the gift of discernment, you don't, not in this case because it threatens the heart of how you believe true knowledge is attained.

Originally Posted by erimir

You are adding condescending cunt to your list of negative qualities, you know that, right?

You better be careful erimir, because you are second in line to get ignored. Doctor X is pushed back to third.

Originally Posted by erimir

People have been incredibly patient with you and given you detailed explanations, yet you dismiss all their efforts with "That's sketchy!" "You expect me to believe this based on READING rather than seeing the studies being performed? Ridiculous! Now READ my daddy's book and believe it!" "It's inconclusive for an unspecified reason that I can't explain or due to irrelevant or insulting assumptions I've decided to make about the authors of those studies!" "OMG why won't you just believe me, it's like you're a cult or something!"

This is turning out to be a joke on you, not me.

Originally Posted by erimir

In that you're probably a troll, I suppose so

The tables have turned because now I see, after giving everyone very substantial evidence in Lessans' favor, no one has said a word.

Originally Posted by erimir

You haven't given any evidence. You've given assertions. You have no experimental data which supports your daddy's crackpot theories.

That's what I'm trying to do erimir.

The least they could have said is that more research needs to be done.

Originally Posted by erimir

That's giving your idiotic ideas more respect than they deserve. The research is not inconclusive, you have been proven wrong and you refuse to admit it. You have given no good reason to dismiss the multitude of studies that demonstrate you are wrong.

I am not dismissing the multitude of studies on the eye. I'm just questioning the direction the eyes see. That's it. Everything else stays intact.

You can't do that; it's a threat to your entire worldview. Oh my goddd, science may have gotten it wrong. So it's easier for everyone to call me dogmatic and dishonest, and Lessans a crackpot.

Originally Posted by erimir

Science has gotten many things wrong, and I'm sure The Lone Ranger or someone else would be willing to give you a long list of things scientists have accepted as true that turned out to be wrong (one example I know is that they used to think outer space was full of a substance called ether).

So why can't you delay your rush to judgment in this case?

Originally Posted by erimir

The difference is that when they're presented with evidence that disproves their theories, scientists abandon them, or modify them to take into account the new information. Your response is to call the evidence sketchy or accuse the people presenting the evidence of being in a cult.

The evidence is not foolproof erimir. We have to carefully examine the ciliary muscle, to see if there's any evidence that the brain is involved in focussing. I'm trying to at the very least have scientists look a little more closely before abandoning Lessans' claims.

Originally Posted by erimir

So go away you dishonest dogmatic cunt.

Oh my god, that was below the belt (literally and figuratively)! As a representative for all the women in here, you're done. Don't post to me again. To gain back my favor, you'll need to get down on the floor and beg for forgiveness, and I mean BEG.

[thedoc]

In another post I suggested the group AAB and you said it was wrong because A was twice with the other A but you are incorrect as A is only with the other A once. If I try to use another group AGA then the A would have been with another A twice in different groups. You don't understand the rules of the puzzle so you are not qualified to judge what is a correct solution, there are probably many correct, but you have only one and can't recognize anything else. I posted a correct solution in post #2449, the puzzle is solved.

The rules stated that a letter 'could not be with another letter twice', but that does allow 'a letter to be with that letter once', hence each could be with itself once in a group.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop talking to me david because you're wasting your time.

Hey, peacegirl, don't you want others to understand Daddy's "astute observation" that if the sun were turned on by God, everyone on earth would see it immediately, yet they would have to wait eight minutes to see their neighbors standing right next to them? Since this "observation" is one of the pillars of his "thought," surely you want people to understand why this phenomenon would take place? It's just a simple matter of explanation, peacegirl, and then the revolution in human thought can take place!

So, start explaining.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to figure out the arrangement such that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter.

Okay, what, precisely does "never be twice with any other letter" mean?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

"IF I cared. If I fucking cared. If I gave a solitary FUCK about your crushed dishonesty."

Promise shithead? Coward? Hypocrite? Liar?

Nevertheless, I will continue to periodically destroy your lies and crush you whether you read it or not. For you do not read. We all know this.

Further, when you try to sell your lies elsewhere, when people search for information on your Loon, they will find this thread.



"Now . . . Fuck OFF!"

--J.D.

AND THEY WILL SEE YOUR BIAS, PREJUDICE, AND OUTRIGHT HATRED. THEY WILL SEE THAT THIS COULD SKEW THE RESULTS. YOU ARE THIRD TO BE BARRED FROM EVER POSTING TO ME AGAIN.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU ARE THIRD TO BE BARRED FROM EVER POSTING TO ME AGAIN.

Guess what, bitch? You have no control over what any of us do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I appreciate your presentation, ...

Originally Posted by Maturin

You most certainly do not appreciate The Lone Ranger's presentation, in any sense of the word "appreciate."

I do appreciate his contribution, but does that mean his interpretation of science in every single aspect of every single biological phenomenon is automatically correct because he holds the truth in hand? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I am neither arrogant or wilfully ignorant just because I'm trying to understand whether it is possible that Lessans could be right.

Originally Posted by Maturin

That is correct, though in a wholly unintended way. You are not arrogant and willfully ignorant for trying to understand whether Lessans could be right; you are arrogant and willfully ignorant because you've already made up your mind in that regard and will not be dissuaded.

You are right; I believe Lessans is correct because I knew him (that is an element of faith); but for political correctness and scientific demands that there must be empirical evidence (even if astute observation and sound reasoning WILL prove him right), I am giving in to more empirical proof. He never said not to do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deny that the model of sight is, for the most part, correct.

Originally Posted by Maturin

You are, of course, wholly unqualified to admit or deny anything in this regard.

You are probably right. The only thing I am qualified to admit or deny is the proof that will either carry Lessans to a new level, or will kill and bury his ideas forever and a day. Isn't that your goal?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure about that one aspect, ...

Originally Posted by Maturin

Bullshit. You are absolutely sure about that particular topic. "The Sacred Text says it, I believe it, that settles it."

Wrong. I hope that someone in here realizes that that is not what I'm doing. If not, the thread is just a dying ember of wishful thinking. But that's not the case, if you keep your composure. No one is doing that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and I will fight to the death to find out.

Originally Posted by Maturin

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would burn me at the stake alive, even though you come off so loving.

Originally Posted by Maturin

Your laughably overblown sense of relevancy notwithstanding, I doubt very much that TLR would go so far as to set you on fire. If he did, though, there's probably plenty of folks who would willingly piss on you to put out the fire.

Well thank you for not burning me alive. I guess I give my life to Maturin, my new hero.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to take the brunt of your anger.

Originally Posted by Maturin

You don't have an option, remember? As long as posting here constitutes your greatest satisfaction, you'll keep coming back and taking all the abuse we can dish out.

Oh my god, you are actually understanding his first discovery. Bless you child.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will continue to research the ciliary muscle to see if there was any truth to what this website was saying.

Originally Posted by Maturin

In which "research" means "running a Google search and slogging through page after page of mindless Internet piffle to ferret out the lone unsupported, anally-derived contention that might, if tortured sufficiently, yield support for Mr. Lessans' anally-derived contention."

Nothing has changed, but nothing has proved him wrong. Please don't do what other have done to try to make a case because of the frequency I've come online? It is so antithetical to science, I could throw up (I hope not on you).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am looking for the truth, are you?

Originally Posted by Maturin

At this point you wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up to you, introduced itself, knocked you down, sat on you and farted in your face.

ETA: I see you edited out your "looking for the truth" howler. Good move, but too late.

Be careful Maturin, or you will be 4th in line to get ousted.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Be careful Maturin, or you will be 4th in line to get ousted.

That would be an interesting list, probably anyone who has presented proof that she and Lessans are wrong. Being 'willfully ignorant' is to ignore the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not necessarily the case that because you haven't seen copious data such data doesn't exist. That would be false inference. It may just be because you have not actually looked at the data that has been provided.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept your implied claim that there is insufficient data demonstrating that dogs can recognize their masters based on their facial features alone. Will you agree that there is at least some experimental data suggesting that some dogs can recognize their masters based on their facial features alone? If you agree that at least some such experimental data does exist are you willing and able to present at least some experimental data that suggests that the contrary is true?

It seems to me that, in all fairness, if you are going to require copious amounts of data in support of one side of the argument, then you also ought to require equally copious amounts of data in support of the opposing argument.

I wish I could just to get you people off my back, but I have found no evidence that dogs can see their masters by sight alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In another post I suggested the group AAB and you said it was wrong because A was twice with the other A but you are incorrect as A is only with the other A once. If I try to use another group AGA then the A would have been with another A twice in different groups. You don't understand the rules of the puzzle so you are not qualified to judge what is a correct solution, there are probably many correct, but you have only one and can't recognize anything else. I posted a correct solution in post #2449, the puzzle is solved.

The rules stated that a letter 'could not be with another letter twice', but that does allow 'a letter to be with that letter once', hence each could be with itself once in a group.

No, please don't change the rules doc. No letter can be with another letter twice. I know you are trying to be smarter than you appear to be, but the truth is you don't have the answer, as far as I can tell. I hate to call you a liar, because I don't like being called a liar either. As the word is defined, you may fill the bill.

[thedoc]

Is English your 3rd or 4th language, and did you ever actually have an English class as in formal education, or did you pick it all up on the street?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Smooth muscle

Smooth muscle is the least specialized of the three varieties of muscle. It is nonstriated (lacks
cross-banding pattern, or striations, found in skeletal muscle), involuntary (innervated by the
autonomic nervous system and thus not under the control of the will), and functions largely as a
regulator of the internal environment. It is found in the wall of hollow viscera (except the heart),
such as in the gastrointestinal tract, uterus, urinary bladder, and blood vessels. It is also found in
association with hair follicles, the dartos of the scrotum, and the eye (i.e.; the iris and ciliary body).

Smooth muscle contracts slowly and tires slowly.

MUSCLE

Once more with feeling: Would you please learn what the word "voluntary" actually means? A muscle can be classified as "involuntary" but actually be completely voluntary in function. (Similarly, some muscles are classified as "voluntary" even though they're completely involuntary in function.)

That's precisely why few modern textbooks still call smooth muscles "involuntary muscles" and striated skeletal muscles "voluntary muscles." Because it's inaccurate and misleading. Some smooth muscles are voluntary, and some striated skeletal muscles are involuntary.



Most smooth muscles are involuntary, of course -- but not all of them are. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you can prove that you have voluntary control over your ciliary muscles in just 10 seconds' time. Not that you'll do it, of course.

And just as not all "involuntary" (smooth) muscles are actually involuntary in their function, not all "voluntary" (skeletal) muscles are actually voluntary. The stapedius muscle, for instance -- even though it's classified as a "voluntary" muscle (in older texts, anyway), it's involuntary in function.


You could, of course, consult a reputable A&P text or take a class, instead of searching for poorly-explained websites that neither take the time to distinguish between voluntary/involuntary in classification and voluntary/involuntary in function, nor why modern texts have largely abandoned voluntary/involuntary for classification of muscles in favor of smooth, cardiac and skeletal*. But then, that sounds suspiciously like work. Plus, you might learn something you don't want to know.


*Even "smooth, cardiac and skeletal" is a bit problematic as a classification scheme for muscles, since not all "skeletal" muscles actually attach to the skeleton. But what can you do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

I must come to the troll conclusion, as well.

I've had as much fun in this thread as I can. And it still just as irresistible to me as ever. However, I no longer believe that anyone can be so tenaciously stupid as this and still be able to operate a computer.

My verdict, should anyone care: Troll. Definitely.

Sharon, who the hell are you to determine whether I am a troll or not? You are a fool!

[The Lone Ranger]

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, it's not unreasonable to suspect that one is dealing with a small semiaquatic waterfowl in the family Anatidae.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl. If Lessans was correct about sight then how does his model explain 2 dimensional objects appearing as 3 dimensional with the use of special glasses (like in 3-d films or viewing 3-d paintings or photographs)? How does he explain that we can see and photograph rainbows, since rainbows are not objects? How does it explain how we can see and photograph asterism in a star sapphire since the star is not an object?

You handwaved these things away as "optical illusions" but they are not illusions at all. The scientific model of sight not only explains these, it predicts them, and that is how 3-d technology was developed, that is how stone cutters know how to reveal asterism.

Lessan's model of sight explains nothing and predicts nothing. So if he is even possibly correct, you should easily be able demonstrate it with one single example of something we can ALL observe, but the scientific model of sight is unable to explain.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

AND THEY WILL SEE YOUR BIAS, PREJUDICE, AND OUTRIGHT HATRED. THEY WILL SEE THAT THIS COULD SKEW THE RESULTS. YOU ARE THIRD TO BE BARRED FROM EVER POSTING TO ME AGAIN.

No, coward, they will recognize your lies, recognize your cowardice, and come to laugh at you as we laugh at you.

What a pathetic waste of human resources you remain.

--Ed.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, it's not unreasonable to suspect that one is dealing with a small semiaquatic waterfowl in the family Anatidae.

One might think that since it lives under a bridge, it fears sunlight, it hates goats, and it fishes all night in a dried up river bed . . . it is not unreasonable to conclude it is a particularly stupid troll.

One might think that, I could not possibly comment.

--Ed.

[davidm]

Hey, Peacegirl, if God turns on the sun, why do we see it immediately, but have to wait eight minutes to see the person standing next to us?

Hm?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish I could just to get you people off my back, but I have found no evidence that dogs can see their masters by sight alone.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl (to erimir)

To gain back my favor, you'll need to get down on the floor and beg for forgiveness, and I mean BEG.

Ah, so that's what she's into, eh?

Well, erimir, you heard the lady...