A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Sorry, people post what they want, when they want here. So, you know, fuck off.

Thank you for giving me permission. That exactly what I'm going to do. I absolutely refuse to go around the mountain one more time. I'm glad it's over. Too much wasted time.

[Vivisectus]

Still, rest easy in knowing that you have made an impression. I will never forget the translucent robes and sexy jackets, or the special sex-word, or the lovable genitalia and the teenagers who would marry for life after jumping each other’s bones spontaneously after swanning around in skimpy clothing a lot - nomatter whose bones they jumped, as personalities would no longer matter, or even exist as far as I can tell.

Thanks for the amazing features of efferent sight that is not transmitted but still seen, which in no way means that any information arrived in any way as nothing moved, and anyway our brains only know what to see because our other senses tell us what to see.

Thanks for calling us meanies, dimwitted and lazy and continually whining that it is all just so unfair and that no-one will just give you a chance, and for blaming us for viciously analysing what you wanted us to look at, even though we somehow all never read the book at all, like, evar.

I am especially grateful for the man on Rigel who can send us the answer to a question we have not asked yet, and the amazing FACT that if we turn on the sun, we would be able to see it, but not the guy standing next to us for 8 minutes.

I also loved the rules of the road for married couples, which as far as I could tell consists mainly a long list of shit you were not allowed to bug Seymour with as he carried out his AWESOME research that was VERY IMPORTANT and SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL, also. Nor will I ever forget the unforgivable affront of the professor who never even gave Seymour the chance to explain how his education was far superior!

I feel I have learned a lot about wilful ignorance, special pleading, moving the goalposts and the noble art of sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing there to upset your crazy ideas. Normally I see it only in religious fundamentalists, and it is refreshing to see this brand of crazy and not have to read the Bible all the time. I am sure you will be happy to hear that I am often told that I have never read that book either, that have not understood it, and have not given it a chance because – shock horror! – I did not share the person’s conclusions on it.

Please check in now and again and let me know how the revolution is going! I can guarantee you it will not happen, which will not stop you from remaining absolutely convinced that all criticism is either mean-spirited, ignorant or just wrong because your father said so.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I absolutely refuse to go

one more time

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for giving me permission. That exactly what I'm going to do. I absolutely refuse to go around the mountain one more time. I'm glad it's over. Too much wasted time.

It wasn't entirely wasted. It kept me fascinated the whole thread through. I'm impressed how much endurance you've had in this thread, especially since you publicly gave it up for lost about 10 times, yet still continued to post.

It's kinda why I think you're a true believer rather than a spammer or a scammer. Emailing millions of random people would have been more effective. Someone hoping to make money wouldn't have wasted so much time to so little reward.


...and part of the reason why I'm replying is the perverse curiosity to see if you are compelled to continue to respond.

[Doctor X]

This is, what? The fifth promise to leave?

--J.D.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't post anymore.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am asking you kindly not to respond because I'm leaving
...
I wish you all well, but please don't post to me after I'm finished answering this page.

lol go fuck yourself


ETA: Kael beat me to it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Now she'll have time to do some goddamn laundry. One can't be a proper New World goil while ignoring household chores and radiating a crippling stench. That's yet another condition of the environment that won't survive The Great Transformation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please check in now and again and let me know how the revolution is going! I can guarantee you it will not happen, ...

Just you wait and see, mister! It all depends on who assumes control of the Pitcairn Islands first, the Lessantologists or the Slobberinists.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
I'm serious Vivisectus. I am asking you kindly not to respond because I'm leaving. I will answer the few questions that are still lingering, but after that I'm gone. . I wish you all well, but please don't post to me after I'm finished answering this page.

It will be interesting to note whether Peacegirl will be compelled toward her greater satisfaction of answering all the kind words directed to her in these 'final?' posts?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't post anymore.

I am asking you kindly not to respond because I'm leaving

I wish you all well, but please don't post to me after I'm finished answering this page.

Why are you trying to dictate how and when other people post in a place you are leaving? What the hell?

Scramble your password, delete the bookmark, take a vacation, whatever. If you want to leave just leave.

[Doctor X]

"Like a bloody opera singer . . . always making her final performance."

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

LadyShea, you are using whatever you can to support your ideas

Why yes. I utilize resources.

You blame me for doing the exact same thing that you are exquisite at doing

I am not the one making unreasonable requests of my discussion partners. Also, I didn't "blame" you, I merely expressed my opinions.

BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE BLIND BASED ON YOUR FALSE CRITERIA.

I don't see some unnamed thing because I am blind based on undefined false criteria that are mine. Uh, awesome, thanks.

That's why this thread is a lost cause. I know this thread is going to die, but it won't be because Lessans was wrong.

Of course not. It will be because you can't hack it, just as I predicted on page 5 or so.

There are no conspirators LadyShea, just confusion. There is nobody attacking you;

LOL, Milton and Lessans are the ones who claim conspiracy and attack in an effort to keep the revolutionary ideas at bay and protect the sacred science!

because of your thinking that your way of judging a work of substance is dependent on the criteria that you have provided, is completely and utterly false.

Why yes, I have a set of criteria I use to judge the usefulness of the seemingly endless barrage of information and ideas I am subjected to every day. Not sure how that's utterly false, but whatever.

That is the problem

What is? That I don't just swallow all the bullshit I come across? Yeah, real problem that.

as you keep asking for empirical proof

I have not once asked for proof. Not a single time.

I've got to leave because you will refuse to read the book. It's futile.

I read enough of it to know it is not worthwhile to read more. And yes, discussion with you is futile. You keep your childlike innocence and I'll keep my cynical rationality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course not. It will be because you can't hack it, just as I predicted on page 5 or so.

I felt the need to answer you.

I hacked it pretty darn long, more than a lot of people could have put up with. Maybe I was the fool. How can anyone hack being laughed at, ridiculed, being the butt of disgusting jokes, called all kinds of names, accused of horrible things, made fun of, and have an important discovery ripped apart by mean spirited individuals who have a vendetta against me because they don't believe the eyes are efferent...and still have something left within me to share? I feel like a washed out dish rag. You predicted it because you've seen the methods used in here. I'm not talking about the proper use of the scientific method, or any other criteria that could be used to decipher truth from fiction. I'm talking about the cold remarks that would ruin any serious discussion. Half of these posts were a waste of broadband space because they were written just to be cruel and for no other reason. I'm sure the people behind these posts would never show their real names. It's easy to be mean anonymously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no conspirators LadyShea, just confusion. There is nobody attacking you;

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, Milton and Lessans are the ones who claim conspiracy and attack in an effort to keep the revolutionary ideas at bay and protect the sacred science!

Lessans never mentioned the word conspiracy; never implied a conspiracy; and I don't think he would have ever imagined someone accusing him of such a thing.

Milton was expressing what he believed was going on in many academic circles. He wasn't claiming conspiracy or attack. Did you not read it? It wasn't an attack on anyone; and it surely wasn't an effort to protect false knowledge.

because of your thinking that your way of judging a work of substance is dependent on the criteria that you have provided, is completely and utterly false.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why yes, I have a set of criteria I use to judge the usefulness of the seemingly endless barrage of information and ideas I am subjected to every day. Not sure how that's utterly false, but whatever.

The only thing I said was false was the one and only criteria that you used. The demand for empirical data has prevented you from even trying to understand what he's written because you can't stop asking, "Where's the proof?" which is preventing many of your questions from being answered in the book itself, or from allowing you to get a true picture of how the transition to the new world can come about. Yes, empirical data is the final judge. Only if something works in the real world is it truly successful. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know you would have gotten a lot more out of the book if you had read it and then asked pertinent questions, not the other way around.

That is the problem

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is? That I don't just swallow all the bullshit I come across? Yeah, real problem that.

I'm not criticizing you for trying to determine whether something is bullshit or not. I am a very skeptical person. I was taught to be. I don't take anything at face value, but when it comes to this book you have placed it in the wrong category. But there's no convincing anyone. The laughter and the mockery will continue on worse than before. This group can't help themselves. All I am is material for the next joke, even if it's at my expense.

as you keep asking for empirical proof

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have not once asked for proof. Not a single time.

What??? You keep asking for the data. You refuse to give him a chance. I know, you will say you've given him a chance. Save your breath.

I've got to leave because you will refuse to read the book. It's futile.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read enough of it to know it is not worthwhile to read more. And yes, discussion with you is futile. You keep your childlike innocence and I'll keep my cynical rationality.

You really think you have read enough from these snippets to conclude that it's not worthwhile to read anymore? As smart as you are, your objectivity has become very unobjective.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Dear newb -

We regret that your ideas are insufficiently robust to endure open discussion, and remind you that is not responsible for maintaining your inflated and unwarranted sense of self-importance. We thank you for the lulz you have contributed and wish you the best of luck in your internet endeavors, assuming you actually gtfo.

Sincerely,

ChuckF
Social Secretary, Newb Committee

[LadyShea]

I have never once asked for proof. I never ask anybody for proof. You seem to think evidence, data, support and methodology are all synonyms for proof. They are not.

Proof is for mathematics only, which I know nothing about.

I do admire your tenacity, and your amazing feats of mental gymnastics, but your dad apparently gave you no tools to use to defend or support his work.

And I have read directly from the .pdf, not your snippets.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have never once asked for proof. I never ask anybody for proof. You seem to think evidence, data, support and methodology are all synonyms for proof. They are not.

Proof is for mathematics only, which I know nothing about.

I should have said evidence, but either way, you didn't do what I asked, and for that reason only, you got nothing from the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do admire your tenacity, and your amazing feats of mental gymnastics, but your dad apparently gave you no tools to use to defend or support his work.

And I have read directly from the .pdf, not your snippets.

I don't know how much you read, but from your summary, it's no wonder you are having a hard time seeing the undeniable nature of this work.

Thanks for recognizing how difficult this has been. I did my best defending the book, but in such a hostile environment (and please don't tell me the environment in here was not hostile), the odds were against me. I could count on my one hand how many sincere questions were asked (excluding the discussion on efferent vision). But worst of all, when I thought I actually explained something well and possibly gained a few points, I was shot down immediately as if to say, you're not going to win one round, you idiot. I know people will say that no one was out to persecute me, but that was not what I experienced.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's actually time for me to leave. Please don't post anymore.

You don't get to control who posts in this thread, or anywhere else, you vapid cunt.

[LadyShea]

Apologetics, which is more or less what you are doing, is difficult.

*In modern times, apologists refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and leaders known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies or are minority views.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how much you read, but from your summary, it's no wonder you are having a hard time seeing the undeniable nature of this work.

It's so undeniable that people can only manage to deny it for over 6,000 posts!

I'm sure that any minute now, we will be unable to deny it any longer, hence justifying your use of the term "undeniable".

If not, do you suppose that it would be idiotic to call something undeniable that is denied by everyone but you?

But worst of all, when I thought I actually explained something well and possibly gained a few points, I was shot down immediately as if to say, you're not going to win one round, you idiot.

Well, duh, that's because you only thought you had actually explained something well, in a way that made it seem like a coherent theory. In actuality, you have never been able to represent Lessans ideas as being coherent and reasonable, for the simple fact that they are not.

They're ridiculous, contradictory, sexist, unscientific, un-"mathematical" (based on either the real definition or your daddy's made up definition of the term), unsupported by the evidence and eminently deniable.

[thedoc]

YouTube - ‪Willie Nelson - The...

[thedoc]

YouTube - ‪Peggy Lee -- Is That All...

&feature=related

[thedoc]

YouTube - ‪"Money" - Liza...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how much you read, but from your summary, it's no wonder you are having a hard time seeing the undeniable nature of this work.

We are not at all having a hard time seeing that this "work" is undeniably wrong.

[thedoc]

YouTube - ‪Cabaret - Life is a...

&feature=related

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

We are not at all having a hard time seeing that this "work" is undeniably wrong.

Oh, give it a rest, enjoy the music.