A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But my manner of responding to challenges to claims made in the book were a reaction to the lack of interest or questions that people had. And when I did answer a question, they still thought these were mere assertions so we couldn't make any progress.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Regardless, Vivisectus' criticisms were directed at you, not at the book. So why did you respond as though they were directed at the book?

Because his criticism of me is equivalent to criticism of the book. It doesn't matter at this point; it's all meant to put me and the book down.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If there is anything resembling a proof for any of the claims in Lessans' book why don't you go ahead and post one of those proofs? Until you do so it is certainly reasonable to deny that there is anything like a proof anywhere in the book. Just one proof, peacegirl. Is that so hard?

If you didn't see the proof in Chapter One, what makes you think you'll see it now? Or maybe you didn't even read Chapter One.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Obviously, neither I, nor anyone else who has commented, saw anything resembling a proof in Chapter One. That being the case, it is up to you to show us what part of Chapter One you think constitutes a proof. Surely, if it is there, you can show it to us. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Put up or shut up.

I am not obligated to show anyone anything. The reason you can't see the proof is because it's not empirical, which is also ruining your chances for understanding. He shows through reasoning why will is not free, but if you are bent on thinking in terms of data collection, you will miss it entirely. I tried to go sentence by sentence but we never got very far. What more can I do?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the only way you are going to understand any of this is to read Chapter One carefully. I can't spoon feed this to you. Now it's too late. I took it down.

I'm taking Google's down too.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, they are.

I take it then that you really do not like Lessans' book or your own posts, since you dislike it when people come off as so cock sure of themselves.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't stop comparing apples to oranges, can you? There is no relationship between creationists and this knowledge.

Be that as it may, I still find it quite disturbing that Doc X keeps mocking creationists and flat-earthers when all the empirical tests have not been done and the jury is still out on the current theories. Why can't he at least give them a chance and withhold final judgement until all of the facts are in? That is what a real scientist would do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you criticize my qualifications, you are also criticizing his qualifications. You know he was not a physicist, so you are judging him as someone who couldn't possibly be qualified to know anything about light and sight.

No, when I criticize you I am criticizing you. If I want to criticize Lessans I will direct my criticisms in his direction. I am able to distinguish between you and your father. Perhaps you ought to try and do the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because the evidence is clear that the car is not in good shape.

What evidence is that? You haven't even seen the car. I you had seen the car you could tell me the make and model. Can you do that, peacegirl?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the only way you are going to understand any of this is to read Chapter One carefully. I can't spoon feed this to you. Now it's too late. I took it down. I'm taking Google's down too.

No, it is not too late. You can always post the relevant portions in this thread and explain how you think it constitutes of proof of his claim. We know that you are able to copy and paste from the book, you have done it often enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his criticism of me is equivalent to criticism of the book. It doesn't matter at this point; it's all meant to put me and the book down.

That is simply wrong. Criticism of the way in which you respond to challenges to claims made in the book are just that, criticisms of your responses. That is not equivalent to criticism of the book. You are not the book (even if you are the editor and the author of significant portions of it) and the book is not you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not obligated to show anyone anything. The reason you can't see the proof is because it's not empirical, which is also ruining your chances for understanding. He shows through reasoning why will is not free, but if you are bent on thinking in terms of data collection, you will miss it entirely. I tried to go sentence by sentence but we never got very far. What more can I do?

Actually, you are obligated to defend your claims. You have claimed that there are proofs of Lessans' claims in his book. Since that has been questioned, you are obligated to defend your claim or admit that you cannot do so. As to what more you can do, I have already answered that for you. You can post the relevant portions of Chapter One and point out what you think constitutes a proof and why you think that it does. Alternatively, you can admit that you are unable to do this and quit making that claim.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

, could you please post one of those proofs for us?
kthnks

Don't hold your breath waithing, there is no proof because there are no discoveries, unless you count fantasy, and a big joke.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, it is not too late.

Well it may be too late for those who did not have the foresight to save the PDF to their computer, the google link still seems to work but for how long? no matter I read the important parts, I'll just need to make notes.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the only way you are going to understand any of this is to read Chapter One carefully. I can't spoon feed this to you. Now it's too late. I took it down. I'm taking Google's down too.

I've read chapter one, it certainly establishes his crackpot credentials by attacking science for setting out to ignore his wondrous "truths".

It worries me when someone begins by attacking the very establishments they should be seeking to convince, it smacks of the crackpot.

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Crackpot index

Be honest what is your dads score?

Just by ticking off the last two points he has 90. Doesn't look hopeful does it?

And here's a little crackpot test just for fun. Take it see what you score?

http://www.insolitology.com/games/test.htm

[Vivisectus]

Hello!!! The truth is you have not studied this work. That's why I say you don't undertand it, and I know I'm right. You all are broken records. I never said you were too dumb, or too lazy, but some of you are mean-spirited, and some have bias which complicates things.

As you see, I am currently under category B: too lazy to read the book. Wildly unjust, as I have actually plowed through the wretched thing, and have read the first couple of chapters several times. I just happen to disagree with it, but that makes me automatically wrong, even though I have painstakingly pointed out what criticisms I had - gaps and fallacies in the logic, unsupported assertions being presented as universal truths, and even a total rejection of simple empirical experiments, not to mention just about all of physics as we understand it.

The simple way to deal with the argument would be to say that Peacegirls believes in the religion, mostly because she loved her father very much and feels that by allowing any criticism of his work, she is betraying him. I feel this is not the case - one could look at his work and see the good intentions, and just conclude that he was probably a well-meaning and kindly man, even though his system was flawed and there was some conceit mixed in with the crusade for universal benignity.

For Peacegirl this is blasphemy.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As you see, I am currently under category B: too lazy to read the book. Wildly unjust, as I have actually plowed through the wretched thing, and have read the first couple of chapters several times. I just happen to disagree with it, but that makes me automatically wrong, even though I have painstakingly pointed out what criticisms I had - gaps and fallacies in the logic, unsupported assertions being presented as universal truths, and even a total rejection of simple empirical experiments, not to mention just about all of physics as we understand it.

The simple way to deal with the argument would be to say that Peacegirls believes in the religion, mostly because she loved her father very much and feels that by allowing any criticism of his work, she is betraying him. I feel this is not the case - one could look at his work and see the good intentions, and just conclude that he was probably a well-meaning and kindly man, even though his system was flawed and there was some conceit mixed in with the crusade for universal benignity.

For Peacegirl this is blasphemy.

So what have we learnt:

1) if you don't read the book you are wrong for being ignorant
2) if you do and you disagree because of any logical argument no matter how well reasoned you are wrong for being ignorant
c) pink bananas are secretly controlled by the space weevils who are in turn controlled by the Reptillians by way of the VJC which is why light is in fact hitting my eyes but the brain control bananas are making you believe that the visual image is coming from your head instead of somewhere else over there just past the dog star about 30 light years from reality.

I feel we are making progress, and feel that being the case I am plumping for C myself as it makes the most sense and is of course undeniably fact.

Heretics! Nail them up I say, nail some sense into them!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like when people come off so cock sure of themselves...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How then can you possibly like anything in Lessans' book or in your own posts. Both are epitomes of cock sureness.

Yes, they are.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I take it then that you really do not like Lessans' book or your own posts, since you dislike it when people come off as so cock sure of themselves.

I guess you don't see the great disconnect.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I merely remind creationists of whatever stripe that the Earth is not, unfortunately, flat.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Doctor X, you are just plain wrong about this. This is the point that is in contention. If you travel far enough in any direction you will fall off the edge of the earth, if it is true that the earth is flat. This is an undeniable truth even if more empirical testing is needed. The jury is still out and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You can't stop comparing apples to oranges, can you? There is no relationship between creationists and this knowledge.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Be that as it may, I still find it quite disturbing that Doc X keeps mocking creationists and flat-earthers when all the empirical tests have not been done and the jury is still out on the current theories. Why can't he at least give them a chance and withhold final judgement until all of the facts are in? That is what a real scientist would do.

Doctor X knows nothing about this book so he is not in the position to talk against it. Most of the time he's just offering comic relief, which I actually appreciate.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You may be an expert on Lessans work but you are not an expert in biology or physics, both of which are relevant to Lessans claims. Lacking expertise in the relevant sciences means you lack the ability to accurately judge their relevance to your father's claims.

You fail to understand that he came to this finding indirectly. He didn't have to be a biology or physics expert to know that his observations were correct.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to distinguish between criticism directed at you and criticism directed at Lessans. We were talking about your lack of qualifications with regard to judging what science is, or is not, relevant to Lessans' claims. I didn't say anything about Lessans' expertise or qualifications to make judgements about such relevance. Please try to pay attention.

When you criticize my qualifications, you are also criticizing his qualifications. You know he was not a physicist, so you are judging him as someone who couldn't possibly be qualified to know anything about light and sight.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, when I criticize you I am criticizing you. If I want to criticize Lessans I will direct my criticisms in his direction. I am able to distinguish between you and your father. Perhaps you ought to try and do the same.

I am a representative of this discovery, and whether you admit to it or not, your criticism of me is a criticism of him. What you are saying, in so many words, is that I can't possibly be in a position to know whether his claim is accurate when I don't have the necessary qualifications to know what science is. Isn't that what it boils down to?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have a used car I would very much like to sell to you. Considering that it has been parked in my corn crib for the past ten years you may reasonably be skeptical about its condition. However, I assure you that it is a perfectly functioning automobile. This fact can easily be confirmed once you have purchased the vehicle from me. If it works you will know that I was telling you the truth. Cash in advance, please.

This analogy is shortsighted. I am not assuring anyone in the face of contradictory evidence. I am extending knowledge that is verifiable in every way.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, do you want the car or not?

No, because the evidence is clear that the car is not in good shape.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What evidence is that? You haven't even seen the car. I you had seen the car you could tell me the make and model. Can you do that, peacegirl?

What's your point Angakuk?

[Sidhe]

Doctor X knows nothing about this book so he is not in the position to talk against it. Most of the time he's just offering comic relief, which I actually appreciate.

I think he's going more for snide trolls than comic relief, although some of the insults haven't even been snide or underhanded. Although true he probably is thinking that he is funny too, so its probably both. On the one hand its intended to provoke you with ridicule and on the other I suspect he thinks he's funny with it. I suspect some people also think he's funny and hence why he does it.

And of course he knows nothing about it, why would he, he's here to ridicule you not to discuss anything pertinent (apologies if he has read the book). Probably hoping at some point in this train wreck of a thread you melt down and go silently gibber in a corner if that hasn't happened already.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I've read chapter one, it certainly establishes his crackpot credentials by attacking science for setting out to ignore his wondrous "truths".

It worries me when someone begins by attacking the very establishments they should be seeking to convince, it smacks of the crackpot.

Crackpot index

Be honest what is your dads score?

Just by ticking off the last two points he has 90. Doesn't look hopeful does it?

And here's a little crackpot test just for fun. Take it see what you score?

Insolitology - Crackpot Test

Very very funny, but don't you see that one can't even defend himself because that would be another 30 pts? It's all a trap for those who really don't fit into this ridiculous test. I'm sure you'll now add 20 points just for saying that. There's no telling how high my score will get. BTW, I know Francois of graveyardofthegods, and he wasn't quite sure of me. He never classified me as a crank, so I was saved from being compared to the the cube guy and breaking the crackpot meter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I think he's going more for snide trolls than comic relief, although some of the insults haven't even been snide or underhanded. Although true he probably is thinking that he is funny too, so its probably both. On the one hand its intended to provoke you with ridicule and on the other I suspect he thinks he's funny with it. I suspect some people also think he's funny and hence why he does it.

And of course he knows nothing about it, why would he, he's here to ridicule you not to discuss anything pertinent (apologies if he has read the book). Probably hoping at some point in this train wreck of a thread you melt down and go silently gibber in a corner if that hasn't happened already.

No, he hasn't read the book; he just keeps reiterating that efferent vision is folly. You said you read Chapter One, so tell me about it. Tell me what he wrote since you seem so sure of yourself that this is crackpot material.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he hasn't read the book; he just keeps reiterating that efferent vision is folly. You said you read Chapter One, so tell me about it. Tell me what he wrote since you seem so sure of yourself that this is crackpot material.

Well what I got from it is that he had a deep distrust of the establishment and or anyone who dared to tell him he was wrong because they wouldn't believe his ideas. What are you asking though?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very very funny, but don't you see that one can't even defend himself because that would be another 30 pts? It's all a trap for those who really don't fit into this ridiculous test. I'm sure you'll now add 20 points just for saying that. There's no telling how high my score will get. BTW, I know Francois of graveyardofthegods, and he wasn't quite sure of me. He never classified me as a crank, so I was saved from being compared to the the cube guy and breaking the crackpot meter.

Shows its effectiveness though doesn't it.

Feynman and Einstein would score very low on the test, people who have advanced unfounded theories as fact, despite them having no foundation in the real world or anywhere else for that matter, very high.

Are you bemoaning the fact it works and accurately predicts the chances of you being a crank, or that the fact you and your dad would score highly on it?

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, it is not too late. You can always post the relevant portions in this thread and explain how you think it constitutes of proof of his claim. We know that you are able to copy and paste from the book, you have done it often enough.

I think it is too late. People are not in the frame of mind to take anything I post seriously, so why should I waste my time and effort?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his criticism of me is equivalent to criticism of the book. It doesn't matter at this point; it's all meant to put me and the book down.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is simply wrong. Criticism of the way in which you respond to challenges to claims made in the book are just that, criticisms of your responses. That is not equivalent to criticism of the book. You are not the book (even if you are the editor and the author of significant portions of it) and the book is not you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not obligated to show anyone anything. The reason you can't see the proof is because it's not empirical, which is also ruining your chances for understanding. He shows through reasoning why will is not free, but if you are bent on thinking in terms of data collection, you will miss it entirely. I tried to go sentence by sentence but we never got very far. What more can I do?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, you are obligated to defend your claims. You have claimed that there are proofs of Lessans' claims in his book. Since that has been questioned, you are obligated to defend your claim or admit that you cannot do so. As to what more you can do, I have already answered that for you. You can post the relevant portions of Chapter One and point out what you think constitutes a proof and why you think that it does. Alternatively, you can admit that you are unable to do this and quit making that claim.

I need to know that people will ask pertinent questions and seriously consider what he has written for me to invest any more time on this subject. I will say, once again, that there is no empirical proof, so if that's your case against Lessans, give it up right now. You need to give him the benefit of the doubt that his observations are spot on as well as his reasoning. If you can't do that, don't bother reading it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Shows its effectiveness though doesn't it.

No, because everyone is clumped together so it doesn't separate the true cranks from the others.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Feynman and Einstein would score very low on the test, people who have advanced unfounded theories as fact, despite them having no foundation in the real world or anywhere else for that matter, very high.

I don't think so because someone genuine could get a lot of points, and not be a crank.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Are you bemoaning the fact it works and accurately predicts the chances of you being a crank, or that the fact you and your dad would score highly on it?

Both. It's a joke really. My father would not have defended himself, so he probably wouldn't have scored at all. He wouldn't have played these silly games.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because everyone is clumped together so it doesn't separate the true cranks from the others.

Does it? Does it really? Like who, name a prominent scientist who would score highly on that chart? I tell you who would the guys who broke cold fusion to the world. They were cranks though who happened also to have done some good science.

I don't think so because someone genuine could get a lot of points, and not be a crank.

Like who?

Both. It's a joke really. My father would not have defended himself, so he probably wouldn't have scored at all. He wouldn't have played these silly games.

Oh he already scored by writing the book. Obviously he says about 120 points worth in the 1st chapter alone.

The rest of the hundreds of points probably come from doing this:

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

and a lot of this:

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

etc

Where as you probably get most of your points from doing some of that but mostly this:

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As you see, I am currently under category B: too lazy to read the book. Wildly unjust, as I have actually plowed through the wretched thing, and have read the first couple of chapters several times. I just happen to disagree with it, but that makes me automatically wrong, even though I have painstakingly pointed out what criticisms I had - gaps and fallacies in the logic, unsupported assertions being presented as universal truths, and even a total rejection of simple empirical experiments, not to mention just about all of physics as we understand it.

Vivisectus, I took your objections seriously, but none of them pan out. I'm not going to concede just to satisfy your need to prove Lessans wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The simple way to deal with the argument would be to say that Peacegirls believes in the religion, mostly because she loved her father very much and feels that by allowing any criticism of his work, she is betraying him.

Not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I feel this is not the case - one could look at his work and see the good intentions, and just conclude that he was probably a well-meaning and kindly man, even though his system was flawed and there was some conceit mixed in with the crusade for universal benignity.

For Peacegirl this is blasphemy.

He was not a conceited man, and this is not a mixed system. Holy *#*$&, this keeps going on and on and on like the energizer bunny. When are people going to give him a chance. Probably never.

[davidm]

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by davidm

As ironic as that is winning or losing anything is not going to happen here David. Winning logic, losing the irrational. It's unrealistic to expect a win or a loss. People who see threads as win or lose generally think they can be. Generally with such far reaching issues they can't be. It's kind of like talking about free will or physics or the whole of philosophy, nothing has been decided yet. Nothing can be so telling someone what is, is a waste of time. And I mean that in every sense. We're wasting our time here. But it aint boring. The most we can hope for is that we will be entertained. Peacegirl has a very entertaining opinion, let's hope it never happens that all those people who are entertaining are forced out because some idiot decides to be the thought police. I think there are far to many people on this forum who do that, I think most of them are just not really giving this forum a chance. Sadly most of them are those who started this forum or are old timers and herding. And that breaks my heart. They are just not interested in free or thinking you all have to be their slaves or you just have to be out of it. Sad mother fucking hypocrites and there whole sad troll slaves are ruining free thought for everyone.

Ask yourself if you want some medium to be free or you just want to heard like most of the progenitors and idiots who "run" this forum. do you really want freedom or just everyone to agree? Sheeple are annoying, and people who start things in a way that they thought it would be free and then abandon it are just twits. Look closely at who has an opinion and those who claim you shouldn't be opinionated. These are the idiots. I fucking can't stand them and fortunately most of this clique of idiots are on ignore for trying to tell me what I think or how I should conform or behave. Fuck me that is as weak as the slavish devotion to smillies. Are you actually able to think?

Tell peacegirl how to reason but to tell her what she thinks is but another fall of man just like every worthless cunt on this forum. You're wasting everything you fought to keep.

Fucking trolls they ruin everything. And yet they act as apologists for everything they do? They lose everyone to apathy to prescribed nonsense they pretend being some anarchist is a sense that only they see, they are the mind morons and the sheep that they describe. They are moronic. They have the bad grace to then tell you they don't care what you think and yet they care so much what everyone thinks because they are weak. YOu see it every god damned day in their petulant little worthless comments, or you would do if you didn't put them on ignore. These are scum these are weak people with no ability to think. These are idiots.

Look at them and look what they want, everyone to think how they do. Everything that matters to be a matter of rules. I despise them. Everything they are is an ironic parody of everything they really care about, but being such a fucking moron they just try so hard to be everything they despise, hilarious isn't it.

Peacegirl isn't the problem people who want to get rid of anyone who has a difference of opinion are, and the old jaded mindset wankers who are this are the problem. Lame. Get a fucking clue some integrity and when you do then try and tell people to think not to agree to your vapid little life rules you fucking dummard.

God it's not fucking rocket science if you want to be a free thinker you have to accept that people will have thoughts that are free from what your tiny little mind can comprehend. You penned up little fucking conformity magnets.

Gah I hate, hate whole Free thought label because really every free though forum is just a load of conformists who want everyone to think like them: you believe in God you are wrong, you believe in free will you are wrong, you don't believe what we do you are wrong. All these schisms in these forums and all because of maggots like these? Stop pretending there's any freedom on any of these offshoots of anything because its all just a load of wankers telling you how to think and it's fucking depressing. Creotards aren't the problem IDiots, it's you that is the problem! You sad little fuckers. You wouldn't know what free thought was if it punched you in the face, and you of all people should not judge people who understand it. If you did this forum wouldn't need to exist nor would any of the half assed freak shows that broke off from others. Stop whining about free thought you don't have a fucking clue how to encourage it you sad MFs.

Let the people talk whatever their views or don't fucking start a forum and claim it's free you're just a liar and a hypocrite and butt sore. There should only of ever been one forum, where everyone has an opinion and can express it without assholes ruining it, but you did congratufuckinglations you assholes. All little holding cells and all little twits. You ruined it because you couldn't get over yourselves or your human nature. I pity you. And don't fucking whine at me because you are hypocrites. It's lame.

This rant was bought to you by and in pinsharp crikey visionTM by my voices that speak to me.

Gotta love ranting.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are not in the frame of mind to take anything I post seriously,

I will say, once again, there is no empirical proof.

You need to give him the benefit of the doubt that his observations are spot on as well as his reasoning. If you can't do that, don't bother reading it.

It would help if you had something serious to say. Repeating a joke about 'woo' wears thin after awhile.

Lack of proof is obvious, and that includes proof of any kind.

So for his book to work we must take everything he says as a given. But since all his 'givens' are wrong, his conclusions are false. The real problem is that many have read the book and seen the falacies and the false 'givens'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a joke really.

My father would not have defended himself,

Glad to see you finally admit it.

That is the first thing you have said that would indicate that lessans is smarter than the average crackpot.