A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is racist, I'm just refering to one individual, If I had said all black US presidents of questionable birth were inept, that might be different.

[peacegirl]

repeat

[Kael]

I should also like to point out, yet again, that this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

there have been no tests on efferent vision because scientists believe it is a fact that we have afferent vision; similar to philosophers who didn't look behind the door of determinism because they believed free will proved determinism's falseness

is utterly false, and peacegirl would know better if she spent even a fraction of the time she spends boldly proclaiming these ideas on the internet in actual research and study. Efferent vision is actually a very old idea, and has been through several permutations throughout our history. It was discarded only in relatively recent times, when more careful and accurate tests kept demonstrating its falsity. Afferent vision, too, underwent several phases of theory before we got solid answers and evidence from both biology and physics, enough to form a synthesis of these fields of study that agreed not only with theory and model, but with all observable evidence and any careful study you could care to conduct.

The philosophy of determinism is perhaps not as clear-cut as the science of vision, but to characterize it as being unilaterally rejected because all the philosophers believe in free will is just as astoundingly ignorant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking you to support your own claims. This is the simplest and least tricky question you have been asked all thread! It's not even about lights on the moon or Mars or hypotheticals about the Sun!

I am asking you if you would see a bright flashing light, half a football field away, in real time according to Lessans.

Yes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps because I have difficulty believing that any sane and rational person would promote such a book, unless it was for monetary gain. The claims and ideas in the book are so completely off the wall and contrary to any reality that is known today, that the only person who could accept them would need to be completely unhinged or a dedicated religious fanatic. I have seen enough of your posts to know that you are not crazy, so there remains only the possability that you are a calculating, coniving con-artist, out to sell books as a scam to make money. So how are the books selling, is it working?

Doc, until you can explain the two-sided equation in your own words, your words mean absolutely nothing because you're just parroting back what everyone else is saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We're discussing it because you wanted to discuss Lessans ideas and we took you up on that. It's not out fault he included such insane claims in his work. The sad part is that the whole efferent vision thing wasn't even necessary.

If it ever turns out that his claim is correct (we'll probably be dead and gone by then), you would see why it was necessary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Viv meant your siblings, who Lessans also exhorted to carry on his work. Are your siblings helping you in any way?

My brother died 24 years ago at age 32. My sister is in business, but is in total support of me and what I'm doing. She can't wait to get her hands on the first shipment of books, so she can do her part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sure, anything for a fellow 'seeker after the truth', but now I'm confused, she says she's not ignoring anyone, but she claims to have put you on ignore and me at one time. How can that be, would that be an oxymoron? Or is it just her?

I didn't say I'm not ignoring anyone; I said I was giving you a second chance. David is in time out for the third time. He doesn't learn his lessons very well.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I'm not ignoring anyone; I said I was giving you a second chance. David is in time out for the third time. He doesn't learn his lessons very well.

[davidm]

Why don't you stop with the aggrieved martyr routine, and just answer the relevant Goddamn question:

Since your prediction that the pictures cameras take of heavenly bodies will differ from what humans see with their eyes, and they don't differ, what becomes of your "theory"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Whoa! is that an admission of guilt?

No, it's not an admission of any such thing. I said that to show how easy it is for an audience to make something appear what it isn't, if their hell-bent on doing so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Congratulations on your son passing the boards. Does this mean his fellowship is complete? How many years of residency has it been?

Thank you so much! No, he just finished his residency. He is now a board certified radiologist, but he is doing a fellowship for one year, so that he'll be in a better position to land a top notch job when he's finished.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK, 11 pages to go, can we agree on a few groung rules? Like during the 10 pages of party no 'shop talk', OK? - - So during the party only 'mindless drivel' as opposed to any serious discussion. - - - Wait a minute, this whole thread has been 'mindless drivel' ? - Shit! now what are we going to talk about?

Anything but the book!!! I NEED A BREAK, TEN FOUR!!!!!!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Congrats to your son

Thanks LadyShea. I am so very proud of him!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well I certainly hope you trimmed it a bit. With good editing you could say everything in about 150 pages, and that would still have some padding.

No doc, the one that's online IS the finished product. In the future I can shorten it, but I'm not doing it again for nobody. It was a labor of love, but it was exhausting, time consuming, and expensive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It occures to me that if Peacegirl was truly interested in promoting the principles in the book 'The decline and fall of all evil' she would take the message to the centers of evil in the world. I think, to be most effective, she should personally give the books to the Taliban, Kim Jong Il, and Muammar Quaddafi, for a start. I really don't think Obama is evil as much as inept, but thats just my opinion.

I would like to add she should give one to Brian, but I doubt he would read it.

I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't. The environment has to change for these type of individuals to no longer be created.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No doc, the one that's online IS the finished product. In the future I can shorten it, but I'm not doing it again for nobody. It was a labor of love, but it was exhausting, time consuming, and expensive.

And any person with half an education and half a brain will get to the part when Lessans babbles ignorantly about seeing the sun immediately when God switches it on, but not one's neighbor for eight and a half minutes, and go:



And read not a line further. That whole passages screams, accurately:

CRACKPOT

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Quoth peacegirl, emphasis mine:

Quoth peacegirl from a few pages back, emphasis mine:

...

Kael, I'm taking a lot of heat in here. I know that anything I say is going to be used against me, so sometimes it's better not to say anything at all, especially when I'm wingin it.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, I'm taking a lot of heat in here. I know that anything I say is going to be used against me, so sometimes it's better not to say anything at all, especially when I'm wingin it.

You do realize that the only profession in which quoting someone verbatim is characterized as "using it against me" is politics, right? If you do not know about things in physics, you do not have the knowledge required to judge whether experiments in that field are flawed. Same goes for biology. If you do know an experiment is flawed, you should be able to say why and where.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, until you can explain the two-sided equation in your own words, your words mean absolutely nothing because you're just parroting back what everyone else is saying.

Interesting ploy, you can't challenge it so you change the subject, and I don't think you can explain it, except to quote sections of the book that yo do not understand.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I'm not ignoring anyone; I said I was giving you a second chance. David is in time out for the third time. He doesn't learn his lessons very well.

[quote=peacegirl;]
I have not ignored anyone Kael.
[quote]

I don't know but was that a contradiction, does peacegirl even know what she is saying? So 'timeout' is a euphemism for 'ignore' now?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, until you can explain the two-sided equation in your own words, your words mean absolutely nothing
.

I'll admit I'm having trouble deciphering and explaining nonsense, but neither have I seen Peacegirl explain what she doesn't understand.

There is an old saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull-shit."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

?? Whaa! Whaaa! Peacegirl is pickin' on me again. Make 'er stop.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Note to DoctorX:

Start rounding up those NBLs. Remember, we have made reservations for ten pages (200-209) for the party, which is now only 12 pages away.

We have a few new ones shipped in. Just to give an idea:



--J. "A River to My People!" D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

You do realize that the only profession in which quoting someone verbatim is characterized as "using it against me" is politics, right? If you do not know about things in physics, you do not have the knowledge required to judge whether experiments in that field are flawed. Same goes for biology. If you do know an experiment is flawed, you should be able to say why and where.

I didn't know that saying "using it against me" is only said in politics. I'll remember that. Kael, I told everyone that I'm trying to take what Lessans observed regarding efferent vision and applying it to the questions that are being posed. If there is an incongruence, then I have to get over that stumbling block or else Lessans' claim will go down the drain. I am not denying that light travels at a finite rate of speed. But there is nothing in the literature that will help me when it comes to explaining how and why Lessans came to his conclusions.

I told the Lone Ranger that I believe the photoreceptors are not being transduced into chemical-electrical signals that are then decoded by the brain. How specific can you get? He says the tests are accurate. I realize this, and I also realize science has accepted this model as fact. I don't think it is.