A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

I'm not crying. I just feel sorry that you missed out on a genuine discovery. Too late now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did love my father very much because he loved me unconditionally. He didn't have a judgmental bone in his body.

This thread is not about your relationship to your father, except where it related to the book. This thread is not about your fathers character, except where it related to the book. Indeed there is much of both indicated in the book and in your presentation of it, and in that light it is open to discussion as it is relevant to the understanding ot the thread and the book. In spite of your protestations there has been valid objections to the content of the book and the motivations of you and your father, and your denial notwithstanding the participants of this thread have read the book and understand what was written. Unless you are admiting to trespass and being a 'Peeping Tom' you have no valid objection to that claim. Your book is not what you think it is, in spite of the grandiose claims, it fails to deliver on it's promise, having no valid support for it's hypothisis, and being completely wrong in several testable ideas.

All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Indeed, the boat may never float. But I'll say this much for Lessans as opposed to the likes of you. He had a daughter that cared for him very much.

What's that got to do with anything? I love my dad, too. Yay for good father/daughter relationships!

My love for him doesn't say anything about the things he writes or makes.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's that got to do with anything? I love my dad, too. Yay for good father/daughter relationships!

My love for him doesn't say anything about the things he writes or makes.

It has got nothing to do with anything at all; N.A. is just a nasty little bugger who couldn't resist getting in a cheap shot against an old adversary. Says nothing about Angakuk and everything about N.A.

And peacegirl, don't think N.A. has the slightest regard for Lessans' bullshit. He's a scientist or involved in science some way, and knows the book is all crap, just like we do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did love my father very much because he loved me unconditionally. He didn't have a judgmental bone in his body.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This thread is not about your relationship to your father, except where it related to the book.

That's true, but someone said his daughter must have loved him a lot, and I don't deny that.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This thread is not about your fathers character, except where it related to the book.

And his character was immaculate doc, whether you want to believe it or not.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Indeed there is much of both indicated in the book and in your presentation of it, and in that light it is open to discussion as it is relevant to the understanding ot the thread and the book. In spite of your protestations there has been valid objections to the content of the book and the motivations of you and your father, and your denial notwithstanding the participants of this thread have read the book and understand what was written.

All I have to say to you is BULLSHIT. No one read the book. Vivisectus read a small portion, and couldn't get beyond his idea that blame is not a condition of hurting someone. He is the only one in all of these pages who had anything related to the book at all.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Unless you are admiting to trespass and being a 'Peeping Tom' you have no valid objection to that claim. Your book is not what you think it is, in spite of the grandiose claims, it fails to deliver on it's promise, having no valid support for it's hypothisis, and being completely wrong in several testable ideas.

All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.

You're wrong doc, and you have no basis upon which to determine the validity of this knowledge. You of all people know nothing about this book, and you know it as well as I. Don't you lie and tell me you read it because I know you didn't. You are parroting what others are saying, that's all. All of you are either parrots, or think you are the gatekeepers of all truth. Guess what? You aren't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's that got to do with anything? I love my dad, too. Yay for good father/daughter relationships!

My love for him doesn't say anything about the things he writes or makes.

With all due respect LadyShea, you think you can determine the truth by one method only. That's what you're all about, and you think that this standard of truth is the only epistemological evidence. It is true that empirical evidence is the ultimate because it either shows a successful outcome or it doesn't. But you were way too premature in deciding that this was just an unsupported assertion. I feel sad about that. One day you'll see that this had nothing to do with a mere assertion. Until then, I wish you well. I have no animosity toward you.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's that got to do with anything? I love my dad, too. Yay for good father/daughter relationships!

My love for him doesn't say anything about the things he writes or makes.

Obviously you don't think that way about your dad. But obviously not so for peacegirl. Maybe you can understand this. peacegirl probably cares for her father at least as much as you care for your child. She is willing to make an arse of herself for him.

This was obvious sometime ago.

The public pile-on and nasty behavior by many here is just par for the course.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It has got nothing to do with anything at all; N.A. is just a nasty little bugger who couldn't resist getting in a cheap shot against an old adversary. Says nothing about Angakuk and everything about N.A.

And peacegirl, don't think N.A. has the slightest regard for Lessans' bullshit. He's a scientist or involved in science some way, and knows the book is all crap, just like we do.

All I have to say to you David, is you're a very insecure guy. Your nastiness topped them all except for your comrade Stephen. You chopped the book up into pieces, never giving Lessans a chance, and you know it deep in the recesses of your confused mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Obviously you don't think that way about your dad. But obviously not so for peacegirl. Maybe you can understand this. peacegirl probably cares for her father at least as much as you care for your child. She is willing to make an arse of herself for him.

This was obvious sometime ago.

The public pile-on and nasty behavior by many here is just par for the course.

The only arse I made of myself is staying this long. I should have realized that you are not true scientists in any sense of the word. Naturalist.atheist, you came by a little too late but I do appreciate your supporting me. This was one of the most difficult threads I have ever been a part of, and I have been cured. Now it's building my own website so I am never abused like this again.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only arse I made of myself is staying this long. I should have realized that you are not true scientists in any sense of the word. Naturalist.atheist, you came by a little too late but I do appreciate your supporting me. This was one of the most difficult threads I have ever been a part of, and I have been cured. Now it's building my own website so I am never abused like this again.

peacegirl, I appreciate your feelings for your dad. And I'm sure he had a lot of great qualities for you to fight so hard for his book. But the public will do what it will do and you can try to understand it on their terms or you can spend a lot of time in pointless bickering.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

It has got nothing to do with anything at all; N.A. is just a nasty little bugger who couldn't resist getting in a cheap shot against an old adversary. Says nothing about Angakuk and everything about N.A.

And peacegirl, don't think N.A. has the slightest regard for Lessans' bullshit. He's a scientist or involved in science some way, and knows the book is all crap, just like we do.

My, my. I never mentioned you. Feeling guilty?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, the link to the book at the colorado philosophy website is disconnected.

Predictably, that's incorrect.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now it's building my own website so I am never abused like this again.

Well, I hope you're not too lonely there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans was like the man who built a boat in his basement. One can admire the dedication and effort that went into building the boat while decrying the waste represented by such a project. The waste is even greater when one considers that the man's craftmanship was poor and the boat was badly made. For years now peacegirl has been trying to get her father's boat out of the basement, to no avail. If, by some strange chance, she were to get the boat out of the basement and into the water it would do no good. This boat will not float.

Was that the basement without a ground level entrance? Actually there was a man who built a boat in his basement around here, but he had a driveway and garage door at the one end. There have also been some who had to knock out part of the wall to get it out. Lessans would have named his the 'Titanic'.

[LadyShea]

Being asked to support your claims and answer objections is not abuse.

FYI, Assertion means nothing more than "Something declared or stated positively".

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well, I hope you're not too lonely there.

I'm sure that if ever she gets a site going and it has a forum, you and your ilk will be all over it like stink on shit.

[LadyShea]

She won't allow dissent, N.A. on her own forum. She will carefully control the discussion, not unlike the imaginary dialogs in the book, or she will simply disallow discussion completely.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She won't allow dissent, N.A. on her own forum. She will carefully control the discussion, not unlike the imaginary dialogs in the book, or she will simply disallow discussion completely.

She probably will.

[Kael]

FWIW, I am of the opinion that davidm's demeanor has been, at best, rather crass. I was taught, and still believe, that one ought to refrain from insulting people just to insult them, which is all nameburns and the like usually are (incidentally, I couldn't help but thing of you, dear n.a, when davidm would use his "pissgirl" nameburn. I think he owes you an acknowledgment at the very least for the inspiration you provide in piss-related burns). Of course, that's not the same as calling an ignorant person ignorant, or a dishonest person dishonest, and equally of course, davidm has every right to behave that way should he so choose.

Most posters in this thread have shown peacegirl far more patience and been far more polite than her responses to criticism have warranted. Even davidm's rude behavior does not invalidate the many problems he brought forward regarding this supposedly revolutionary work. Rude behavior is a poor shield to hide behind, especially in science.

Also, wtf "she loves her daddy?" Really? What does that have to do with anything, save a possible insight into the foundation of the complete, willful dogmatism she descends to when a single word of her Glorious Father's Great Work is disputed?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Kael

Also, wtf "she loves her daddy?" Really? What does that have to do with anything, save a possible insight into the foundation of the complete, willful dogmatism she descends to when a single word of her Glorious Father's Great Work is disputed?

Because Kael, if she feels that way, then what has motivated her is not driven by a critical analysis of the facts. Which of course explains her persistence even in light of the onslaught of both thoughtful and crass responses to her father's book. To continue to confront her based on rational considerations is just stupid.

This was obvious a long time ago. She may be wrong but I understand her persistence. It could very well be the persistence that a mother shows for the care of a child that is beyond any rational hope. That's a human response. I've seen people do this. It is a noble thing as misplaced as it may be and I don't think she deserves derision for it. Maybe kindness and some understanding would have been more warranted.

I understand that she did a poor job in both presenting and defending her father's book. But you gotta give her persistence.

As for my failings, such as they may be, I take full ownership of them. However davidm's problems are his own. Make a note of it.

[Kael]

My motivation has not been to convince peacegirl, since as you say it has been fairly obvious since the beginning that this isn't really probable, and may only just be possible.

I find it important, however, when confronted with pseudo-science, woo, and assorted internet wankery, to do more than simply state that it is wrong. It is far more important to show how it is wrong, about what, and why. These efforts are not for the benefit of the peddlers of such nonsense. Most of them are either True Believers or already know it's wrong and just want to cash in. One does not debunk Kent Hovind lectures in an attempt to convince Hovind himself of the errors he makes. I know I am not the only poster who has stuck with this stupefying thread for the purpose of making those explanations.

Piling on and general mockery, both light-hearted and cruel, is pretty much expected when something this ridiculous comes along. I do not excuse or defend it, but neither do I recognize any special immunity peacegirl should have from ridicule simply because she truly believes everything her dearly loved father wrote.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Kael

Piling on and general mockery, both light-hearted and cruel, is pretty much expected when something this ridiculous comes along. I do not excuse or defend it, but neither do I recognize any special immunity peacegirl should have from ridicule simply because she truly believes everything her dearly loved father wrote.

On this forum piling on and mockery of those the crowd considers "ridiculous" should be expected. School yard rules apply. Perhaps there should be a warning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I appreciate your feelings for your dad. And I'm sure he had a lot of great qualities for you to fight so hard for his book. But the public will do what it will do and you can try to understand it on their terms or you can spend a lot of time in pointless bickering.

No more bickering. The only thing I regret is trying so hard to explain these premises. Even if the people in here thought they were unsupported assertions, they never gave him a chance the minute he said the eyes are efferent. You're right that the public will do what it will do. The only difference is that these people actually think they disproved his claims and they did no such thing. From here on in I will sell the book and let people chop it up all they want. Usually when someone pays for a book, it's more valuable to them and they'll take the time to actually read it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

My, my. I never mentioned you. Feeling guilty?

I have nothing to feel guilty about.

[naturalist.atheist]

good luck to you peacegirl.