A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy shit. Please tell me this is a joke.



If the sun is bright enough to be seen? You just got through admitting that if God turned on the sun at noon, it would take the light eight and a half minutes to reach the earth.

Did you not say that?

Pray, then, explain, peacegirl, how we could see the sun immediately, when, by your own admission, it takes the light from the sun eight point five minutes to reach the earth?

It takes 8.5 minutes to see each other because it would be dark davidm.

Originally Posted by davidm

To be bright enough to be seen, the light has to reach your eyes. And you, yourself, just got through saying that the light from the sun won't reach your eyes for eight and a half minutes! Ergo, you won't see the sun until eight and a half minutes have passed, after God turns it on, according to your own words!

That was the point. He was saying the image of the sun does not have to reach the eye if the eyes are efferent. Let this go David. You're getting obsessed with this.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, is the bed in your bedroom big enough, and bright enough, to be seen?

Now, do an experiment: Wait until night. Close the all the windows. Then, turn off the light in your room.

Do you see your bed? Why or why not?

Sure, surely you cannot be this thick. A kindergartner can grasp the obvious point being made here.

I see the bed because of the light of the moon. What the hell are you trying to say???

[Doctor X]

The stupidity of Lessans and his disciples makes Scientologists appear thoughtful.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Don't forget, also: According to The Great Man, everyone in the Golden Age is going to prance about scantily clad.

No, they are going to make themselves as appealing as possible, which would involve showing one's charms. Remember, people were not as scantily clad as they are today. Nowadays, there is nothing left to take off.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope I'm invited to the party. The doc said only rational people are invited. I'm tryin, I'm tryin!

Actually I said 'sane and rational', but in your case I'll make an exception, you can come as my date, other wise you might not get in. Just make sure you bring your medications.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really?? If I'm the stupidest person you've ever come across, . . .

Given the level of stupidity he frequently encounters, it is quite an achievement. Since you remain proud of your ignorance, you are, understandably, proud of his recognition.

. . .you're the most despicable person I've ever come across.

You need to get out more often.

So we're even.

No, he is correct.

You are wrong.

He wins.

You lose.

--Ed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's the first time I ever saw you speechless.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the bed because of the light of the moon. What the hell are you trying to say???

This one may be dumber than Brandon.

--Ed.

[The Editor]

So much for her promises to leave. Yet another one of her Lies.

--Ed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now if you say one more word that is nasty, condescending, or patronizing, you know the consequences by now.

Do you seriously think he, or anyone else cares by now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You've already admitted at least three times that the mechanism is unknown! Can't you even recall the drivel that you write, you idiot?

And, you're not game for anything. You're flat-out nuts.

Sorry davidm. You obviously can't learn, can you? Back to ignore.

[The Editor]

Too bad everyone reads him and most have you on ignore.

How impotent you are.

--Ed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you joking? This is completely in character for her in this thread. She constantly takes things out of context, like davidb, and thinks it's funny or disgusting, depending on what sentence she is screwing up.

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Are we reading the same thread? When several of us--I will admit I was one--were targeting you with in anticipation of the 100-page mark, LadyShea was conspicuously absent. She waited until we meanies backed off after the party. Then she again started treating your ideas and you seriously, which most everyone else had given up on as futile.

I appreciate that, but she also took many sentences out of context, which is not what someone should ever do when an author asks them in the intro and foreword, not to do this, for very good reason.

Originally Posted by SharonDee

That she, the paragon of patience here, has finally decided you're not worthy of serious consideration anymore says a lot about the futility of your cause. (Not that it wasn't pretty seriously sunk before.)

She has many good qualities from what I have observed talking to her, but that doesn't mean she is correct in her analysis. I am upset that she is using his excerpt about love to make his concept sound disgusting, because it isn't, and if she had read the entire book the way it was meant to be read, she would see this.

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Now would be a good time for you to leave. For reals.

I'll leave whenever it feels right.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Not "strippers" . . . NBLs

--J.D.

Are they bringing anything for the party, obviously there will be nothing concealed under their clothes, or even by their clothes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

The stupidity of Lessans and his disciples makes Scientologists appear thoughtful.

--J.D.

Even putting them in the same sentence could be construed as an insult to Scientologists, better be careful.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Editor

Too bad everyone reads him and most have you on ignore.

How impotent you are.

--Ed.

Are you kidding, I would never put her on ignore, she is more ludicrously funny than 'Space Balls'. This has been the most 'jaw droppingly' silly thread ever. And I must sincerely thank Piecegirl for making it all possable. (according to Lessans thats all girls are good for).

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you kidding, I would never put her on ignore, she is more ludicrously funny than 'Space Balls'. This has been the most 'jaw droppingly' silly thread ever. And I must sincerely thank Piecegirl for making it all possable. (according to Lessans thats all girls are good for).

Number of Active Posters = ?

Number of Posters Who Bother to Respond to this Idiot = ?

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Most have concluded she is a spoiled lying hypocritical coward not really worth the effort. She lacks the panache of even a Young Earth Creationist.

--Ed.

[LadyShea]

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry davidm. You obviously can't learn, can you? Back to ignore.

L.O.L. This is so ridiculously obscene, you are accusing Davidm of being unable to learn? L.O.L.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Editor

She lacks the panache of even a Young Earth Creationist.
--Ed.

Now you have the audacity to insult 'Young Earth Creationists", be careful if they are right they could wipe out your ancestors as they would no longer exist. You're not saying they are rude, insulting of our intelligence, and willfully ignorant, like she is?

[thedoc]

I'm just here for the beer, - there will be beer at the party? ? ?

[thedoc]

Just not American beer,

YouTube - Monty Python Live at the...

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would have done anything to get his foot in the door of a well known institution, or a conventional publisher, but unfortunately that was not to be. He might have been better off, I'm not denying that, but he didn't get the opportunity. You're acting like he didn't try these things. You aren't giving him credit at all for the years he spent in careful analysis and observation. You're dismissing it like it's nothing. You still haven't explained what the two-sided equation is in your own words.

That silly Harvard educated professor! He couldn't see that Lessans' education was far superior than his own. No arrogance in that statement at all. If that conversation is to be believed, he was not reaching out to the academic world, he was confronting it. Why would the professor bother to help Lessans if all that Lessans wants is to score rhetorical points against him?

IN all honesty, I'd forgotten what the chapter 2 said. I had to go back and re-read it. The 2 sided equation is: You can't be blamed for your actions, because your will isn't free, but you you can't be forced to act. You will never want to hurt me because you have no blame and no justifications to motivate you. The "movement towards greater satisfaction" is always to avoid hurting others. Tell me how I have it all wrong now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't giving him credit at all for the years he spent in careful analysis and observation. You're dismissing it like it's nothing.

Because, in the end, they amounted to nothing. It was a pittiful waste of time, and a waste of a life that might have accomplished something if he hadn'e been so enamored of his own stupidity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

I give up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So many people fall in love with how someone looks; their physical features. Those who are not beautiful, or not attractive by society's standards, do not get the man or woman in many cases. These are on the bottom of the totem pole. When these words are removed, there won't be this kind of stratification system. What he is saying here is that when there is no more criticism as to one's choice, it won't matter what someone looks like because this will be secondary. If someone can't find an individual who looks like Elizabeth Taylor, for example, he will look for someone who will accept him as her husband. Looks becomes secondary to sexual satisfaction. That's all he meant LadyShea, and I doubt if you even understand this based on your posts.

This is such a load of B.S. When it comes to a long term relationship, looks and sex are secondary. Personality and compatability are the main attractors, Looks soon become less important, except to those who are stuck in adolescence, and can't grow up. If you honestly believe that sex is the main attraction in a relationship you belong in the pre-stone age, as even cave men had a more mature attitude toward mates. And I should know, I was there, but seriously you have decended into the most idiotic level of stupidity yet.