A revolution in thought - Page 1008

peacegirl · #**25176** 03-18-2013, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . I will find another home for this knowledge . . .

Just curious here -- you've written many times at :ff:

that you've "learned your lesson" and that you're finished with internet discussion forums. Even so, you started anew at Project Reason. Predictably, goings-on at that forum were about the same as goings-on here.

I say "predictably" since you've been presenting Lessans' work to internet discussion forums since at least 2003. The reactions have been pretty uniform, and you've regularly announced that you won't be bothering with discussion forums again only to start up again somewhere else.

So the question becomes, why? I mean, you know what they call pursuing the same course of action repeatedly and expecting a different result, right? :wink:

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

The link to the specific discussion is down, but you can eventually make your way to Talk Atheism and The Secular Web...neither of which return search results for "Janis Rafael." :chin:

The Internet Infidels discussions -- epic in size if not in content -- are archived at II's successor discussion board. There's a link here.

It's no surprise that the reactions have been the same. I do keep believing against all hope that there is a philosophy forum that doesn't immediately tell me I'm in a dreamworld. This is no reflection on this book whatsoever. I am surprised though that project reason banned me for no other reason than the moderators felt like it. They didn't even have the courtesy to warn me, or give me a reason. I never cursed or did anything that would warrant them to take such an extreme action.

Spacemonkey · #**25177** 03-18-2013, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?

You said we would discuss it. Why are you reneging?

My questions have nothing to do with afferent vision, and address only your claims about efferent vision. You have made specific claims about the photon at the retina. I'm asking you to work with me to see whether or not those claims are plausible. Why are you refusing to co-operate?

You've defended efferent vision by claiming that at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the surface of the Sun. If there is no time at which these photons could have been plausibly located there then your claims must be false. This is why I am asking you to select a time at which these photons could have been at the Sun.

Please answer. I would much rather discuss this than your mental state.

peacegirl · #**25178** 03-18-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the exact timeframe that the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet the requirements of efferent sight. It's not important to this discussion. What's important is that as long as the conditions of efferent sight are met, we will automatically be within visual range and the photons will reflect at the retina exactly what we see (optics). This model does not involve any delays unless, as I said, the object hasn't grown large enough for it to be within a camera's field of view or one's optical range. I know this is not going to satisfy you Spacemonkey. I don't think anything will because you are convinced that our eyes are afferent.

How disappointing. You said you were willing to discuss this with me, but so far you're still just avoiding the question. I didn't ask you for the timeframe for when the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet your requirements. That was not the question. We already know that (according to Lessans) the Sun will be big and bright enough to be seen instantly at the very moment it is turned on. You have said that at this very instant (12:00) there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the Sun. I'm asking you when they were so located. Obviously you don't know. But I am asking you to work with me to find an answer. Here are the only possibilities:

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

Obviously your claims (along with efferent vision) must be incorrect if none of these answers can be made to work. So choose the one that you think is most plausible. If it turns out not to work then we can cross it off the list and you can try another answer. But if we end up crossing them all off, then we will have discovered and proven that these photons either did not come from the Sun, or cannot be there at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. Please answer this time instead of evading.

Those photons, Peacegirl. You said we would discuss this. So let's do so.

I am never going to answer to your satisfaction, so I don't think there's anything more I can add.

Didn't you even read my post? I'm not asking you to answer to my satisfaction. I'm asking you to work with me to see if any of the possible answers might be plausible. You said we could discuss this. Why are you being so evasive and uncooperative?

I'm not being uncooperative. I just don't think the way you think about photons, as being separate entities apart from the object, you're ever going to agree that this model is plausible. Are you actually trying to see if it's possible, or are you questioning me incessantly to show me up? :sadcheer:

Spacemonkey · #**25179** 03-18-2013, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How disappointing. You said you were willing to discuss this with me, but so far you're still just avoiding the question. I didn't ask you for the timeframe for when the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet your requirements. That was not the question. We already know that (according to Lessans) the Sun will be big and bright enough to be seen instantly at the very moment it is turned on. You have said that at this very instant (12:00) there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the Sun. I'm asking you when they were so located. Obviously you don't know. But I am asking you to work with me to find an answer. Here are the only possibilities:

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

Obviously your claims (along with efferent vision) must be incorrect if none of these answers can be made to work. So choose the one that you think is most plausible. If it turns out not to work then we can cross it off the list and you can try another answer. But if we end up crossing them all off, then we will have discovered and proven that these photons either did not come from the Sun, or cannot be there at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. Please answer this time instead of evading.

Bump.

Your claims about efferent vision must be false unless one of the above four answers can be made to work. So pick an answer. If it doesn't work then you can switch to a different answer. But refusing to pick any answer or to even address the question is a tacit acknowledgement that you know your claims are bunk. If the photons you are placing at the retina came from the Sun then there must be some specifiable time when they were located there. If you can't answer then efferent vision has been refuted. Again.

Spacemonkey · #**25180** 03-18-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not being uncooperative. I just don't think the way you think about photons, as being separate entities apart from the object, you're ever going to agree that this model is plausible. Are you actually trying to see if it's possible, or are you questioning me incessantly to show me up? :sadcheer:

You are being completely uncooperative, and on a topic you said you were willing to discuss.

Do you agree that you have defended efferent vision by saying that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from and were previously located at the surface of the Sun? [Y/N]

Do you agree that I have listed all the possible times for when they could have been located there? [Y/N]

Do you agree that for your claim to be true, at least one of these possible answers must be plausible? [Y/N]

peacegirl · #**25181** 03-18-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?

You said we would discuss it. Why are you reneging?

My questions have nothing to do with afferent vision, and address only your claims about efferent vision. You have made specific claims about the photon at the retina. I'm asking you to work with me to see whether or not those claims are plausible. Why are you refusing to co-operate?

You've defended efferent vision by claiming that at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the surface of the Sun. If there is no time at which these photons could have been plausibly located there then your claims must be false. This is why I am asking you to select a time at which these photons could have been at the Sun.

Please answer. I would much rather discuss this than your mental state.

And I would rather discuss his first discovery than repeating this one for another thousand pages, and get absolutely nowhere. Photons are always traveling but that's not the issue. Due to efferent vision, the Sun being turned on is no different than a candle being turned on. The candle could be tiny, but if it's bright the photons will be at the retina. The same goes for the Sun, even though the light has not reached Earth yet. The actual distance is not what matters; what matters is that the object is bright enough to be seen and therefore is within optical range. How long does it take for us to see a candle that is lit? It's instant. It's the same for the Sun. You need to think reverse. If we see the object, the light, being the link to the external world, has to be at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. Your thinking goes along these lines: if the light reaches the retina, then we will see the object. That is the opposite of the efferent model.

Spacemonkey · #**25182** 03-18-2013, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?

You said we would discuss it. Why are you reneging?

My questions have nothing to do with afferent vision, and address only your claims about efferent vision. You have made specific claims about the photon at the retina. I'm asking you to work with me to see whether or not those claims are plausible. Why are you refusing to co-operate?

You've defended efferent vision by claiming that at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the surface of the Sun. If there is no time at which these photons could have been plausibly located there then your claims must be false. This is why I am asking you to select a time at which these photons could have been at the Sun.

Please answer. I would much rather discuss this than your mental state.

And I would rather discuss his first discovery than repeating this one for another thousand pages, and get absolutely nowhere. Photons are always traveling but that's not the issue. Due to efferent vision, the Sun being turned on is no different than a candle being turned on and our eyes. The actual distance is not what matters; what matters is that the object is bright enough to be seen. How long does it take for us to see a candle that is lit? It's the same for the Sun. Think reverse, or you will never believe this model is plausible.

So what you're saying is you lied to me when you said you were willing to discuss this?

peacegirl · #**25183** 03-18-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How disappointing. You said you were willing to discuss this with me, but so far you're still just avoiding the question. I didn't ask you for the timeframe for when the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet your requirements. That was not the question. We already know that (according to Lessans) the Sun will be big and bright enough to be seen instantly at the very moment it is turned on. You have said that at this very instant (12:00) there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the Sun. I'm asking you when they were so located. Obviously you don't know. But I am asking you to work with me to find an answer. Here are the only possibilities:

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

Obviously your claims (along with efferent vision) must be incorrect if none of these answers can be made to work. So choose the one that you think is most plausible. If it turns out not to work then we can cross it off the list and you can try another answer. But if we end up crossing them all off, then we will have discovered and proven that these photons either did not come from the Sun, or cannot be there at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. Please answer this time instead of evading.

Bump.

Your claims about efferent vision must be false unless one of the above four answers can be made to work. So pick an answer. If it doesn't work then you can switch to a different answer. But refusing to pick any answer or to even address the question is a tacit acknowledgement that you know your claims are bunk. If the photons you are placing at the retina came from the Sun then there must be some specifiable time when they were located there. If you can't answer then efferent vision has been refuted. Again.

If the Sun is that bright and that large when it's first turned on, then it would meet the requirements of efferent sight. The photons would be at the retina because we are able to see the object (the Sun), which puts the photons at the retina. If it's turned on and it's not bright enough, then we can't see it and the photons will not be at the retina. We're not using distance as our measurement Spacemonkey (which you can't seem to let go of) because there is no travel time in the efferent account. If you think efferent vision is refuted, then let it rest. I really don't want to discuss this anymore.

peacegirl · #**25184** 03-18-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?

You said we would discuss it. Why are you reneging?

My questions have nothing to do with afferent vision, and address only your claims about efferent vision. You have made specific claims about the photon at the retina. I'm asking you to work with me to see whether or not those claims are plausible. Why are you refusing to co-operate?

You've defended efferent vision by claiming that at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the surface of the Sun. If there is no time at which these photons could have been plausibly located there then your claims must be false. This is why I am asking you to select a time at which these photons could have been at the Sun.

Please answer. I would much rather discuss this than your mental state.

And I would rather discuss his first discovery than repeating this one for another thousand pages, and get absolutely nowhere. Photons are always traveling but that's not the issue. Due to efferent vision, the Sun being turned on is no different than a candle being turned on and our eyes. The actual distance is not what matters; what matters is that the object is bright enough to be seen. How long does it take for us to see a candle that is lit? It's the same for the Sun. Think reverse, or you will never believe this model is plausible.

So what you're saying is you lied to me when you said you were willing to discuss this?

I said I would answer your question in the FF forum. I didn't say I was going to start the whole discussion all over again. Stop accusing me of being a liar. It's crazy.

Spacemonkey · #**25185** 03-18-2013, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I would rather discuss his first discovery than repeating this one for another thousand pages, and get absolutely nowhere. Photons are always traveling but that's not the issue. Due to efferent vision, the Sun being turned on is no different than a candle being turned on. The candle could be tiny, but if it's bright the photons will be at the retina. The same goes for the Sun, even though the light has not reached Earth yet. The actual distance is not what matters; what matters is that the object is bright enough to be seen and therefore is within optical range. How long does it take for us to see a candle that is lit? It's instant. It's the same for the Sun. You need to think reverse. If we see the object, the light, being the link to the external world, has to be at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. Your thinking goes along these lines: if the light reaches the retina, then we will see the object. That is the opposite of the efferent model.

Your above explanation doesn't work unless there is light at the retina on Earth at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. For that to be possible, this light had to have come from somewhere. You said it came from the Sun, and for that to be possible this light had to have been previously located at the surface of the Sun at some specifiable time. If that is the case then least one of the answers I listed must be correct, but you keep refusing to address the question or select an answer. My question directly addresses the gaping flaw in your offered explanation, and you are refusing to even consider how this problem might be met.

Spacemonkey · #**25186** 03-18-2013, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How disappointing. You said you were willing to discuss this with me, but so far you're still just avoiding the question. I didn't ask you for the timeframe for when the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet your requirements. That was not the question. We already know that (according to Lessans) the Sun will be big and bright enough to be seen instantly at the very moment it is turned on. You have said that at this very instant (12:00) there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the Sun. I'm asking you when they were so located. Obviously you don't know. But I am asking you to work with me to find an answer. Here are the only possibilities:

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

Obviously your claims (along with efferent vision) must be incorrect if none of these answers can be made to work. So choose the one that you think is most plausible. If it turns out not to work then we can cross it off the list and you can try another answer. But if we end up crossing them all off, then we will have discovered and proven that these photons either did not come from the Sun, or cannot be there at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. Please answer this time instead of evading.

Bump.

Your claims about efferent vision must be false unless one of the above four answers can be made to work. So pick an answer. If it doesn't work then you can switch to a different answer. But refusing to pick any answer or to even address the question is a tacit acknowledgement that you know your claims are bunk. If the photons you are placing at the retina came from the Sun then there must be some specifiable time when they were located there. If you can't answer then efferent vision has been refuted. Again.

If the Sun is that bright and that large when it's first turned on, then it would meet the requirements of efferent sight. The photons would be at the retina because we are able to see the object (the Sun), which puts the photons at the retina. If it's turned on and it's not bright enough, then we can't see it and the photons will not be at the retina. We're not using distance as our measurement Spacemonkey (which you can't seem to let go of) because there is no travel time in the efferent account. If you think efferent vision is refuted, then let it rest. I really don't want to discuss this anymore.

Did these photons come from the Sun? If so, when were they located there? If you don't know, then pick an answer so we can see what the problems might be.

Spacemonkey · #**25187** 03-18-2013, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what you're saying is you lied to me when you said you were willing to discuss this?

I said I would answer your question in the FF forum...

And yet you haven't answered my question at all. You are instead refusing to discuss it after saying that you were willing to do so. How was that not lying to me?

Spacemonkey · #**25188** 03-18-2013, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not being uncooperative. I just don't think the way you think about photons, as being separate entities apart from the object, you're ever going to agree that this model is plausible. Are you actually trying to see if it's possible, or are you questioning me incessantly to show me up? :sadcheer:

You are being completely uncooperative, and on a topic you said you were willing to discuss.

Do you agree that you have defended efferent vision by saying that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from and were previously located at the surface of the Sun? [Y/N]

Do you agree that I have listed all the possible times for when they could have been located there? [Y/N]

Do you agree that for your claim to be true, at least one of these possible answers must be plausible? [Y/N]

Bump.

naturalist.atheist · #**25189** 03-18-2013, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Actually peacegirl, my first post defended you. But then I got to know you, and became concerned for you because forums are no place for someone as crazy as you are.

You feigned being friendly in the beginning but it didn't take long for your true colors to come out.

Yup, color me concerned for some deluded old woman, perpetually wandering the internet flogging a book written by her dad who was a narcissistic, uneducated, irrational boob.

Guilty as charged. Unfortuately both you and your dad have an illness that makes you blind to just how sick you are. Get help peacegirl.

Spacemonkey · #**25190** 03-18-2013, 09:22 PM

Did you say you were willing to discuss this and answer my question? [Y/N]

Are you actually willing to discuss this and answer my question? [Y/N]

Did you say something that was not true? [Y/N]

traumaturgist · #**25191** 03-18-2013, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an insane conversation and I don't want to have anything to do with it!!! If this is all I get, I will find another home for this knowledge, but this time David and NA will not find it.

Again - why bother communicating this knowledge if your prophecy is inevitable? Oh, I forgot...that whole paradox of a sure thing needing people to help it into being. You don't do really well with paradoxes.

traumaturgist · #**25192** 03-18-2013, 09:40 PM

I know everyone has a history (and the baggage that goes along with it), but.....Googling "Seymour Lessans" has revealed (yes, a revelation!) just how futile this entire exchange is about to be....man, talk about compulsive repetition!

Free will vs. determinism - Page 3

ILovePhilosophy.com • New Discovery

graveyard of the gods • View topic - Janis' wonderful discovery

thedoc · #**25193** 03-18-2013, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?

Preforming the same action over and over again, and expecting different results. Sound familiar Janis, can you identify with this?

naturalist.atheist · #**25194** 03-18-2013, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

I know everyone has a history (and the baggage that goes along with it), but.....Googling "Seymour Lessans" has revealed (yes, a revelation!) just how futile this entire exchange is about to be....man, talk about compulsive repetition!

Free will vs. determinism - Page 3

ILovePhilosophy.com • New Discovery

graveyard of the gods • View topic - Janis' wonderful discovery

You could say that peacegirl is stuck in a perpetual revolution in thought.

Stephen Maturin · #**25195** 03-18-2013, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

narcissistic, uneducated, irrational boob

This thread remains a treasure trove of custom user titles.

peacegirl · #**25196** 03-18-2013, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I would rather discuss his first discovery than repeating this one for another thousand pages, and get absolutely nowhere. Photons are always traveling but that's not the issue. Due to efferent vision, the Sun being turned on is no different than a candle being turned on. The candle could be tiny, but if it's bright the photons will be at the retina. The same goes for the Sun, even though the light has not reached Earth yet. The actual distance is not what matters; what matters is that the object is bright enough to be seen and therefore is within optical range. How long does it take for us to see a candle that is lit? It's instant. It's the same for the Sun. You need to think reverse. If we see the object, the light, being the link to the external world, has to be at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. Your thinking goes along these lines: if the light reaches the retina, then we will see the object. That is the opposite of the efferent model.

Your above explanation doesn't work unless there is light at the retina on Earth at the very moment the Sun is first ignited.

That's what the dispute is about Spacemonkey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For that to be possible, this light had to have come from somewhere. You said it came from the Sun, and for that to be possible this light had to have been previously located at the surface of the Sun at some specifiable time. If that is the case then least one of the answers I listed must be correct, but you keep refusing to address the question or select an answer. My question directly addresses the gaping flaw in your offered explanation, and you are refusing to even consider how this problem might be met.

How can we agree if you state that the photons have to be on Earth which involves time? That would negate the possibility that we see in real time. Why can't we all wait for scientists to take this claim seriously in order to determine if the eyes are, in fact, efferent? Then we can worry about the mechanics of it; i.e., how it is possible to see in real time if light from the Sun hasn't reached Earth yet. I don't think there is a gaping flaw at all. I think you are stuck on the afferent mode, believing that light has to independently travel to Earth for us to see objects. Although it sounds logical coming from the afferent perspective, in the case of efferent vision the logic is flawed. When and if this claim is ever checked out will be the time to further this discussion. Until then, I'm going to be viewed as a fundie, and it's not in my best interest to continue when there's no hope of ever finding out the truth in this thread.

peacegirl · #**25197** 03-18-2013, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?

Preforming the same action over and over again, and expecting different results. Sound familiar Janis, can you identify with this?

That's how it appears but there is a rationale to my travels on the internet. I have explained that every audience is different to a degree, although the hardened thinking of philosophy groups took me by surprise. I thought the last forum I went to would be different because many people already believe in determinism, but alas, that also failed not because there's anything wrong with the discovery (hardly anyone even attempted to understand what I put online), but because of the nature of the claim. No one can believe there is a permanent solution to war and crime, so they sneer at me as if I'm the crazy one.

So, yes, I have been doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results because people are different. But now I am losing all hope that any philosophy forum will be open-minded enough to contain their skepticism enough to really give this man the benefit of the doubt. After all these pages, no one has seriously studied this work. It sounds unbelievable but it's true. How wrong and unfair a person can be made out to be. :sadcheer:

naturalist.atheist · #**25198** 03-19-2013, 12:03 AM

peacegirl, it's not the forum that is the problem. It's you (a crazy person) and the material (insufferable dreck).

Spacemonkey · #**25199** 03-19-2013, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not being uncooperative. I just don't think the way you think about photons, as being separate entities apart from the object, you're ever going to agree that this model is plausible. Are you actually trying to see if it's possible, or are you questioning me incessantly to show me up? :sadcheer:

You are being completely uncooperative, and on a topic you said you were willing to discuss.

Do you agree that you have defended efferent vision by saying that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from and were previously located at the surface of the Sun? [Y/N]

Do you agree that I have listed all the possible times for when they could have been located there? [Y/N]

Do you agree that for your claim to be true, at least one of these possible answers must be plausible? [Y/N]

Bump.

LadyShea · #**25200** 03-19-2013, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained in the past that this guy did not like Lessans' second discovery, and he went behind my back and wrote a fake review because he never read the book. He misrepresented it by saying there was force when there is no mention of force in the book.

How does that prove he "never read the book"? Maybe it's a faulty paraphrase or something, but how can you prove he didn't read it?

Lessans mentioned "severe punishment" for non-citizens...it is not a huge leap to read that as force.

peacegirl of course will have none of it. She simply tells us what Lessans "really meant" in these instances, because apparently he couldn't say what he really meant a lot of the time