A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He did? Where?

Post the passages.

David, if I have to spoonfeed you the pages, then I can safely say you didn't read the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already offered that as a suggestion. I suggested that if the only way to read the book is to think of it as science fiction, then maybe that's a good way to approach it. At least it will get read, and it will take the pressure off. If it's read carefully, from beginning to end, maybe we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we're at a dead end.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, bugger off, you've said this "dead end" shit about a hundred times. And you never leave. And you keep lying. People have read the book, either in its entirety or substantially.

Whoaaaa, what do you mean by people have read the book "in its entirety or substantially." You are not going to get away with this comment without an explanation.

Originally Posted by davidm

People have quoted extensively from it. Reading the whole thing makes it even stupider. It is quite possibly the stupidest book ever written. Do you know why that reviewer called it "The Plan 9 From Outer Space of Books"? Because "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is widely conisdered to be the worst movie ever made. And you father quite possibly has written the worst book ever. It's full of stupid from first to last.

This answer means nothing. When someone is explaining a math equation, anyone could show half of it and make it look flawed. You are trying to get away with not reading the book, and still think you can give a fair review. This is stupidity at its worst David.

[thedoc]

Did someone say 6000 post party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0thH3qnHTbI

[thedoc]

YouTube - ‪Miley Cyrus - Party In...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does this make it easier for you to understand that information is somehow passing between two points when we see?

No, because that is not how we are getting the information. We see the tree instantly, not the distance between two objects. But we recognize what the tree means through our thought processes, which is, if you will, a time related event.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

YouTube - ‪Miley Cyrus - Party In The U.S.A.‬‏

Thank you doc, you must have noticed that I needed a reprieve. But your intuition that I needed a break wasn't woo woo. It wasn't sent to you through space and time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This I can agree with, we are not students in this case, (though we are all students where real learning and knowledge are involved), this is not a class unless it is in 'Theatre of the Absured'. And there is no way by anyones warped and twisted imagination that you could in any way be considered a teacher, that would be an unspeakable insult to even the worst and most unqualified teacher in any school.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, if you really wanted to shut us all up, you could find a problem with the current theory - "afferent vision" as you call it, then you could show how efferent vision might explain this problem better.

I'm really interested to hear one of your many examples of this.

I'm doing my best specious_reaons, and if I can't meet your expectations, it doesn't prove that Lessans was wrong in any way, shape, or form.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will give you the page numbers, but you have to involve yourself in this process. It's very easy to put the responsibility on me, when you own half of that responsibility LadyShea.

I did involve myself. I read the first two chapters several times. I raised my concerns about the reasoning and presentation early on and you insulted me by saying I obviously did not understand what I read. You refused to paraphrase. You refused to explain. You refused to concede even a tiny bit that there might be a problem with the writing (we're not even talking about the content yet) that obscured the meaning.

Do you think that is fair to your readers..to dismiss valid criticisms? To refuse to answer simple questions or provide clarification? To view any and all critique as the readers being too stupid to understand?

When a very possible fallacy was pointed out, instead of going through the process of explaining exactly why it wasn't an example of the modal fallacy you just stated "It's not!" I, on the other hand studied the modal fallacy, and asked an expert on logic to explain it to me, so I could see if the charge was valid. What did you do? Stamped your feet and blamed the reader.

I have an adequate vocabulary and grasp of the language and am well read enough to understand almost all works written in English. I found serious issues in the very first chapter, others found issues, and you were asked to defend those things and failed to do so. You act as if this is not the process for any academic work. You act as if Lessans should be held above and beyond all normal levels of critique on your say so.

Don't give me any shit about being uninvolved, I was as involved and any reader could or should be. You are again just weaseling.

Could it be that it is not rationally presented because you are seeing it that way?

What does that even mean? If the reader perceives bad presentation and irrationality, then that's what they perceive. But why should I assume it's me when you can offer zero clarification yourself?

The fact that you are demanding something he never supported might make you an undesirable candidate because you are not seeing him in an authentic light.

What does that mean? Who did he write this for if not a reasonably intelligent person who gives a shit about facts? Are the only desirable candidates the credulous masses who see 589 pages and assume the author must have something important on account of using a lot of words? If so, why have you consistently chosen places where the readers are most likely to be intelligent people who understand logic and evidence and see through bullshit pretty quickly?

After 10 years of this, why do you still think it's the readers that have the problem? I am far, far from the only person to offer critiques. You even had some people at other forums willing, even eager, to give Lessans a very fair reading and even they finally hit a wall you couldn't adequately respond to.

Answer me this: Why do they have to determine who the jury will be when the story becomes a national event? Because people are influenced, and that's what is happening here LadyShea. As smart as you are, you are being influenced by rhetoric.

You have some huge balls saying that to me. Take a look at the first couple dozens pages, peacegirl. The largest negative influence on me in this thread has been you. Your stonewalling and weaseling and comparisons to lynch mobs and Nazis are the "rhetoric". I, probably more than anyone else, gave you ample opportunity to defend and clarify and explain and persuade. You blew it.

If you want to start over with chapter 1 I am willing. But you need to stop with the bullshit. Answer the questions, accept the critiques as potentially valid, do the fucking research you need to try to make a coherent case without all the histrionics and baseless assertions and blaming the reader.

I don't think you can do it. I don't think you will even attempt to put the very first principle, why man's will is not free, into a concise logical format. I don't want page numbers. I want to see premises and a conclusion in your own words without all of Lessans extraneous dialog and meanderings.

I asked you to read the book step by step, which you obviously never did.

Look again. Look now. You cannot, or will not, even put down a simple logical argument for one principle from chapter 1.

So, it's on you now. I disagree with Lessan's on why human will is not free. I think he made "X happened" into "It was necessary that X happened" which is fallacious.

I agree that human will is not free, in the sense that many use the term free will, however my reasoning is far, far different from Lessans.

If I don't find the reasoning he used to reach a conclusion I agree with valid and rational, then I will, of course, have a much more difficult time accepting similar reasoning for conclusions I disagree with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And this is what should have been presented in the book, rather than you inventing, and twisting the words in the book and reality to make them fit each other. However it would be nice if you actually did try to make them fit with some kind of explination, rather than denying that they don't fit.

There is no twisting or faking the truth. There is only THE TRUTH.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still seem to think there is a conflict with real time vision and the theory of relativity. There isn't, but I'm glad you are getting something from this thread even if it's not the intended purpose.

1. When you see the sun appear in the sky, do you, or do you not, have NEW INFORMATION?

2. What does relativity say about the limit to obtaining new information?



You really are a pathetic lying little weasel. Don't you ever tire of it?

ETA: btw, what happened to your earlier claim that relativity theory was WRONG? Did you hastily and shamelessly change your story once you became clued in to the fact that relativity theory is one of the most well-confirmed theories that we have?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because that is not how we are getting the information. We see the tree instantly, not the distance between two objects. But we recognize what the tree means through our thought processes, which is, if you will, a time related event.

Seeing the tree is acquiring information about the tree. Without that information there is nothing to process, there is no data. That is all I am asking you to concede.

You really think that you look rational by denying that seeing is a form of data collection?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please lay out Lessan's argument for why man's will is not free, in some recognizable format (rather than imaginary dialog) without using fallacious reasoning.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I will give you the page numbers, but you have to involve yourself in this process. It's very easy to put the responsibility on me, when you own half of that responsibility LadyShea.

What you are saying is that I haven't involved myself in the process. I have given my all, but if I restate the facts, you will say I'm regurgitating. I can't win.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did involve myself. I read the first two chapters several times. I raised my concerns about the reasoning and presentation early on and you insulted me by saying I obviously did not understand what I read. You refused to paraphrase. You refused to explain. You refused to concede even a tiny bit that there might be a problem with the writing (we're not even talking about the content yet) that obscured the meaning.

No way. If you read the first chapter (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't believe you read it with the intent to learn anything; only with the intent to criticize), it is your responsibility to tell me what you got from it. Don't put the responsibility on me LadyShea. That is very sneaky, and not in accordance any scientific guidelines I know of.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think that is fair to your readers..to dismiss valid criticisms? To refuse to answer simple questions or provide clarification? To view any and all critique as the readers being too stupid to understand?

Are you telling me I haven't tried to explain the basic principles to you? I have done everything I can think of to get people interested in this work. But all they do is go back to their way of determining truth; empirical testing, and therefore tell me I am wrong. Is it any wonder we have gotten nowhere? And is it any wonder the so-called scientists in here have not been able to examine this work with any kind of objectivity?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When a very possible fallacy was pointed out, instead of going through the process of explaining exactly why it wasn't an example of the modal fallacy you just stated "It's not!" I, on the other hand studied the modal fallacy, and asked an expert on logic to explain it to me so I could see if the charge was valid. What did you do? Stamped your feet and blamed the reader.

I am going to lose LadyShea. No matter what I say, if there is a professor who says something is true, no one will listen. That is a big danger in here. Let the professor come forth and we can have a debate instead of this secretive person who gave you information that is supposed to contradict this knowledge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have an adequate vocabulary and grasp of the language and am well read enough to understand almost all works written in English. I found serious issues in the very first chapter, others found issues, and you were asked to defend those things and failed to do so. You act as if this is not the process for any academic work. Yo act as if Lessans should be held above and beyond all normal levels of critique on your say so.

You have done the opposite of what I asked. You are not reading with a childlike curiosity. You are attacking and demand a response before getting a grasp of what the book is about. Until you see the difference, you will not get the answers you are hoping for.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Don't give me any shit about being uninvolved, I was as involved and any reader could or should be. You are again just weaseling.

You are involved only to the extent that your methodology allows. Unfortunately, it's the methodology that is at fault in determining the validity of this work.

Could it be that it is not rationally presented because you are seeing it that way?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean? If the reader perceives bad presentation and irrationality, then that's what they perceive. But why should I assume it's me when you can offer zero clarification yourself?

I have offered clarification, but you are blind. You are so sure that this is a trick of some kind, that you are blocking your ability to hear me, or even read with any objectivity. What am I supposed to do?

The fact that you are demanding something he never supported might make you an undesirable candidate because you are not seeing him in an authentic light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean. Who did he write this for if not a reasonably intelligent person who gives a shit about facts? Are the only desirable candidates the credulous masses who see 589 pages and assume the author must have something important on account of using a lot of words? If so, why have you consistently chosen places where the readers are most likely to be intelligent people who understand logic and evidence and see through bullshit pretty quickly?

Because the very people who understand logic (who I am depending on) are the very people who are misconstruing what this book is about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

After 10 years of this, why do you still think it's the readers that have the problem? I am far, far from the only person to offer critiques. You even had some people at other forums willing, even eager, to give Lessans a very fair reading and even they finally hit a wall you couldn't adequately respond to.

Please don't use the 10 years I've been working on this as proof that there's a problem. I haven't been very many places, but through these forums I see a definite problem and it's not Lessans who has the problem. I do not believe Lessans was given fair treatment, let alone a comprehensive study of this book. That's a lie.

Answer me this: Why do they have to determine who the jury will be when the story becomes a national event? Because people are influenced, and that's what is happening here LadyShea. As smart as you are, you are being influenced by rhetoric.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have some huge balls saying that to me. Take a look at the first couple dozens pages, peacegirl. The largest negative influence on me in this thread has been you. Your stonewalling and weaseling and comparisons to lynch mobs and Nazis are the "rhetoric". I, probably more than anyone else, gave you ample opportunity to defend and clarify and explain and persuade. You blew it.

Maybe I shouldn't have been that dramatic (I am human if you didn't notice), but this has nothing to do with the veracity of these principles LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you want to start over with chapter 1 I am willing. But you need to stop with the bullshit. Answer the questions, accept the critiques as potentially valid, do the fucking research you need to try to make a coherent case without all the histrionics and baseless assertions and blaming the reader.

When all is said and done, there are no histrionics, just facts.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think you can do it. I don't think you will even attempt to put the very first principle, why man's will is not free, into a concise logical format. I don't want page numbers. I want to see premises and a conclusion in your own words without all of Lessans extraneous dialog and meanderings.

That's a cop-out if I ever saw one. I listed the pages, and it wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes to read it. And you want me to give you this knowledge on a silver platter? I've already done that. I've given you the entire book for free, what more do you want?

I asked you to read the book step by step, which you obviously never did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Look again. Look now. You cannot, or will not, even put down a simple logical argument for one principle from chapter 1.

I refuse to work harder than you do. You give me something to go on, to let me know you are trying. You are just regurgitating. You have not given me one legitimate question that I can answer based on your reading, because you don't have one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, it's on you now. I disagree with Lessan's on why human will is not free. I think he made "X happened" into "It was necessary that X happened" which is fallacious.

No no, don't play this game with me. He never said it was necessary that X happened. It's quite the opposite or we couldn't change our behavior based on new conditions. It's up to you to read the required pages. Then we can have a fair discussion. Don't put this on me, like I'm the one at fault.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I agree that human will is not free, in the sense that many use the term free will, however my reasoning is far, far different from Lessans.

If I don't find the reasoning he used to reach a conclusion I agree with valid and rational, then I will, of course, have a much more difficult time accepting similar reasoning for conclusions I disagree with.

I get that, but you have failed to do the most cursory reading. What do you expect? Knowledge that has not been attained through your own effort? Now that's something physics would have a problem with.

[LadyShea]

I just gave you the best chance to redeem yourself you are likely to get and you weaseled and whined and played the martyr yet again.

Fuck you. It doesn't matter at this point is Lessans was 100% right about every thing he ever said for the simple fact that YOU'RE his mouthpiece.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way. If you read the first chapter (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't believe you read it with the intent to learn anything; only with the intent to criticize), it is your responsibility to tell me what you got from it.

Fuck off, asswit. How about you read The Lone Ranger's 35-page long essay, with big pretty pictures to help your empty head understand it, and then YOU tell US what you learned from it.

You're a goddamned con artist and a lackwit. Fortunately you're a bad con artist and your lacwittery is glaringly obvious. That is why you will remain a cult of one. Even your children won't bother with this stupid rubbish.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no twisting or faking the truth. There is only THE TRUTH.

If you understand it at all, tell us in plain english, and not Lessans convoluted and confusing retoric.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But all they do is go back to their beliefs and tell me I am wrong.

to be cont...

Our "beliefs" are well-documented facts explained by well-attested theories. It's YOU who has beliefs, unspported by evidence or theory; supported only on the say-so of a seventh-grade dropout pool hustler.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let the professor come forth and we can have a debate instead of this secretive person who gave you information that is supposed to contradict this knowledge.

to be cont...

Let him come forth? I already explained where the modal fallacy was in the account; I even linked you to Web pages that offered an in-depth explanation of this particular fallcy. Did Your Royal Highness read those essays? No, of course not!

[LadyShea]

if there is a professor who says something is true, no one will listen. That is a big danger in here. Let the professor come forth and we can have a debate instead of this secretive person who gave you information that is supposed to contradict this knowledge.

I only asked the professor to explain the modal fallacy to me. I didn't ask him to read the thread nor did I ask him to comment on Lessans book wrt to the fallacy. I asked him to teach me the concept itself because I was having trouble understanding. I researched relativity and causality. I researched the current literature when I was looking for experiments regarding how dogs see and think. I even read quite a bit about free will versus determinism for this thread.

Why is that remotely problematic to you? Why is my educating myself to participate meaningfully in the thread a threat? Why didn't you do the same thing is my big question.


On top of that, these below are from only the first 7 pages.

Don't say I didn't do my part, peacegirl.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I hope you'll stay and participate peacegirl. I guarantee your ideas will be examined and critiqued, which most scholarly types consider a good thing. As to whether you'll appreciate the criticisms or be able to handle having to defend the work, well so far I wouldn't lay odds on that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People are less likely to immediately brush off ideas presented by people they know and like, just as they are more likely to be hostile to the sudden appearance of strangers selling or offering something they didn't seek. This is communicating with humans 101 stuff.

This is the Internet, which you've been on a while now, apparently, and it exists on the Earth, which you have also been on for some time.

You can hardly type any single word into Google without coming across some Big Idea! From 2012 prophecies, to the Time Cube, to proposed nations where sex slavery is legal and encouraged, to quack medicine and the various Spooky Mulders. People knock on our doors with soap or salvation or Opportunities! to sell. How do you not know this?

Look, if you want to bungle around the web for a few more years hoping someone will become enlightened by osmosis, by all means continue what you are doing. If you want this idea to be seriously considered and examined by seriously smart people, pick up some basic social skills.

You may think I am a bitch, and you might be right depending on your definition of bitch, but I am actually trying to help you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not find any testable hypotheses in the first 2 chapters. It's very much a philosophical, and somewhat theological, piece, not a scientific one.

What kind of tests are you imagining could be done?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability from your understanding of the principles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).

I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

What is it you feel I am missing?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That does not make it a scientific hypothesis. What kinds of tests could be set up to produce replicable results?

This is an assertion based on little more than belief, not possible test parameters.

How would a scientist set up a controlled and time limited method of applying the principals and how would they track and compare the results? What exact hypothesis would they be testing?

If the hypothesis is "Humans do not have free will", what kind of experiment could that lead to?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then offer your more accurate definition, even if you think it might be confusing.

Understood and agreed upon definitions are the basis of any discussion.

So since the revolutionary idea is so apparent to you, you assume it must be apparent to everyone? Whatever it is, it is not apparent to me, and others also seem to have missed the essence of the discovery.

Perhaps that is the fault of the reader, or perhaps it is your and the authors failure to concisely convey the idea.

So please, tell me what the discovery is, in your words.

It fails because it is distracting and confusing. You are again blaming the reader.

Wait what? Don't blame poor writing on the writer?

So help me understand. I am not seeing what it is you are seeing, so please explain.

I will even help you meet me where I am by telling you I do not accept or adhere to the concept of free will to begin with.

And I welcome your concise answers, should they be forthcoming

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And to give you more to work with, I agree with this

I believe our decision making (or "will" if you prefer) is constrained by a great many things including physical laws and our unique individual consciousness, comprised as it is by our experiences and inferences, as well as varying circumstances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it is so clear, then why are people confused and why would explaining your interpretation of the concept dilute it?

In your what, 4-5 years, of presenting and discussing this online, how many people have stated they felt the concepts or your arguments were compelling?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lots of ideas are flawed, but are refined and researched further if the basic concept is compelling enough to people and/or shows promise. I think your presenting it as a scientific hypothesis is leading to trouble as well. It is philosophy from my reading, not science.

I have read (skimmed in the case of the freeratio archives of 3300 posts) your previous discussions at three different forums, and didn't see anyone agree that the concept was unique or enlightening (and you have talked to what, several dozen people?). Where else have you presented this info? Has it been well received anywhere?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been either unwilling, or unable, to describe what exactly about the concept you find so personally compelling. "Just look at it, it is apparent how important it is" is not a description. You have also been unable to explain exactly why others' interpretations are wrong in any kind of detail. Again, mostly "You are wrong, if you understood it you wouldn't think that"...so help us understand. What exactly are we not understanding?

I did not see anything in what I read to make me want to read further...nothing even got a "hmmm, interesting". Maybe I am unique in my interpretation of the work as "meh", and maybe you are unique in your interpretation of the work as "world changing", or maybe it's a split.

I reviewed the other discussions, and asked you the question, to see if anyone, besides you and the deceased author, find the idea very important, or valuable, or compelling, or even mildly revelatory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think pedophilia is caused by childhood trauma? As the author died prior to the enormous recent progress in neuroscience, he didn't have nearly the knowledge we do now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, because they want to. Sociopaths in particular feel no need justify anything they do. They do what they want to do when they want to do it because they do not care.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's quite an assertion. Do you have evidence this is always true?

fMRI and sMRI both show that in many, many cases of mental illness, including in pedophilia, the brain is differently structured and/or functions differently when compared to average brains. We have to assume that in at least some of these the brain differences are congenital.

The book only seems to discuss psychology, not physiology, so I was hoping you could point me to some passage illustrating, or maybe paraphrase, the mechanism by which the concept can eliminate mental illness in light of current knowledge from neuroscience.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not looking of empirical proof, I am looking for an understanding of how the concept applies "on the ground" in real situations.

How can it change the world if you, who have studied it for years, can't even answer pretty simple questions regarding practical issues?

Why the defensiveness and continued evasions and vagueness? This is really very frustrating.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is possible the structure changes in reaction to the environment working on congenital predispositions, and it is probable that we have no idea yet what genetic dispositions and what types of environmental stimuli interact in what ways to cause the changes.

However, that's a lot of maybe and we don't know, and yet you assert "creates a new condition of the environment prevents mental illness in general."

At most you can claim that the concepts could possibly prevent mental illness, but we have no reason to believe that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I linked to your posting of the book on someone else's forum. I gave you sound advice on how to prevent hostility and suspicion in your introductions.

Go to Blogger, sign up for free, and post the book.

Nobody has asked you to prove anything. All anyone has asked you is to answer questions and paraphrase and describe the concept. This is how people present new ideas and theories. If they know the material inside and out they have no problem defending it, tailoring their explanations to their audience, and inserting it into hypotheticals to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

I have read a fairly large portion of the book and the concept is not clear. It's a lot of assertion.

The pretend expectation you think we have of your providing empirical proof is unfair yes. The very real expectations we have that you can present it and defend it is not unfair. That is expected from everyone from students to attorneys to doctors to theologians to philosophers to business people.

I am not finding the answers in the book. The concept which is very clear to you is not clear to me, and apparently to others.

You are the one trying to get people to accept the idea as revolutionary, therefore it is your responsibility to make cogent arguments and respond clearly to questions. What you are doing instead is the True Believer shuffle of deflection and blaming the listener.

Yes, you are doomed to this cycle of fruitless discussion because you either will not or cannot learn how these types of discussions are supposed to work, and you have chosen audiences that tend to require similar rules of discourse.

If you want to present information to people, you have to do it in a way they will listen to, which many have specifically told you how to do that, or you need to find an audience that doesn't have these types of expectations for intellectual discourse, namely the Woos.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have shown you a lot of respect that I feel you have not earned. You think I am working so hard to get through to you out of disrespect? That would be a spectacular waste of my time and talents.

Then you have spectacularly wasted your time and talents trying to promote this concept.

Why do you think that is?

Most book promoters at least offer a synopsis, you can't even do that.

Deflection and blaming the listener

Why have you avoided offering a definition, summary or synopsis yet you expect me to?

[thedoc]

[QUOTE=peacegirl;952946]
it is your responsibility to tell me what you got from it. Don't put the responsibility on me LadyShea.
QUOTE]


This is absolutely WRONG peacegirl, YOU are the one trying to sell the book, it is your responsability to explain and promote the book. We are under no obligation to explain anything to you, if you need an explination it would be because you do not understand the book. You explain the 'two sided equation' if you can, which I doubt because you have offered nothing in 6000 posts by way of explination of anything except to regurgitate Lessans words. I don't believe you understand anything except that the book could be your meal ticket. Stop asking us to do your job for you, it's entirely your responsability to present the book.

[LadyShea]

I read the first two chapters within the first 10 pages of this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just gave you the best chance to redeem yourself you are likely to get and you weaseled and whined and played the martyr yet again.

Fuck you. It doesn't matter at this point is Lessans was 100% right about every thing he ever said for the simple fact that YOU'RE his mouthpiece.

I am redeemed and I don't need your approval. And you curse at me, as if this is some kind of retribution for a wrongdoing on my part? How very scientific LadyShea. I can say the same thing back at you, and I think I will. FUCK YOU!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read the first two chapters within the first 10 pages of this thread.

And it went in one ear and out the other, so we're back at square one.

[LadyShea]

Keep blaming the reader, that's been your MO since page 1. How's that working out for you, by the way. Do you feel that's a good way to get your point across...stonewalling and insulting?

[thedoc]

I'll bet that if we all went out and bought a copy of the book and posted the receipt for her to see as proof of purchase, she'd be gone in a heart beat, or should I say the 'ring of the cash register'.