A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

It really doesn't matter to me, peacegirl, I was just curious as to what thedoc was referring to. Have a nice life

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to talk to anyone here except the few people who were fair with me. That doesn't leave many.

Quite a lot of us were perfectly fair, respectful and civil to you in the beginning. You didn't exactly reciprocate. And that's why things changed.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done after the last few questions come in.

Bullshit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just one more extension of the same old people (just a different forum) than the ones I've already encountererd.

Even money says you can't identify the one key element common to all those discussions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm done. There is no way to mend this thread. It's over hun.

I'll believe that when I see it, or more like when I don't see it.

I think I'll look into an ice-skate concession in Hades, and a hot dog stand.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And btw LadyShea, I have 4 children and 3 grandchildren. Don't listen to thedoc.

LadyShea, Actually she did say that on another forum, when she still seemed to be sane and rational. I didn't realize that she was a religious fanatic, so far over the edge. I might not have said anything about my own grandchildren, I'll watch them extra close.

[Doctor X]

So the "flame out" will come before 200 pages?

--J.D.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what it says.

Be more specific. Give an example of two groupings that "are not twice with any other letter", and two groupings that "are twice with any other letter". Because I don't have the slightest fucking clue as to what you think you mean by that phrase. And I'm not alone.

I've put together a lot of exam questions, and if I ever gave a student a problem that was even half as shittily worded as your "puzzle", the students upon whom the question would be inflicted would be angry--and rightly so.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I don't

Then perhaps you might want to stop acting like a stuck-up cunt who thinks she does, hmm?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Even money says you can't identify the one key element common to all those discussions.

Duh. In all of the conversations, no one saw the obviousness of the Great Truth that is contained in this work. Which is, of course, just more evidence of how ultimately correct it is, and how mired in superstition and dogmatism the world is, and how much science is like an old wives' tale.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I don't; that is a definite. I also see how people are retaliating. It shows me that any sane person can act insane if pushed to the brink. I guess that's what I've been doing, unwittingly. People are getting satisfaction from becoming part of the mob, and I must be getting some kind of pay off as well. I thought I was here to share something. Now it's turned into a witch hunt. I'm done after the last few questions come in. This is just one more extension of the same old people (just a different forum) than the ones I've already encountererd. Thank goodness I have finally been cured. And it sure as hell doesn't make any of you look good either; especially in a professional light.

It is for us to find out if there is something to be shared. Pursuading someone
is a waste of time.

Putting someone down has no meaning on the internet. Only when you are face to face.
" And it sure as hell doesn't make any of you look good either; especially in a professional light "

There is a real deep giggle inside of me.

I am not convinced, that you just described your feelings here.
You just toyed with the members.

You're not cured, you are satisfied now.

Thank you for being so considerate peacegirl, have a nice life ( I always want to say that to the stranger whom I found was a nice and short encounter), and take it easy.
Or if you stay, then you are more exposed then ever, here on the FF.
And we'll maybe learn from you too, the hard way , or the good way.

Weird to fight with "AIR" peacegirl.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Kael

Duh. In all of the conversations, no one saw the obviousness of the Great Truth that is contained in this work. Which is, of course, just more evidence of how ultimately correct it is, and how mired in superstition and dogmatism the world is, and how much science is like an old wives' tale.

Exactly!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It really doesn't matter to me, peacegirl, I was just curious as to what thedoc was referring to. Have a nice life

Thanks LadyShea, you too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Once more with feeling: Would you please learn what the word "voluntary" actually means? A muscle can be classified as "involuntary" but actually be completely voluntary in function. (Similarly, some muscles are classified as "voluntary" even though they're completely involuntary in function.)

That's precisely why few modern textbooks still call smooth muscles "involuntary muscles" and striated skeletal muscles "voluntary muscles." Because it's inaccurate and misleading. Some smooth muscles are voluntary, and some striated skeletal muscles are involuntary.



Most smooth muscles are involuntary, of course -- but not all of them are. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you can prove that you have voluntary control over your ciliary muscles in just 10 seconds' time. Not that you'll do it, of course.

And just as not all "involuntary" (smooth) muscles are actually involuntary in their function, not all "voluntary" (skeletal) muscles are actually voluntary. The stapedius muscle, for instance -- even though it's classified as a "voluntary" muscle (in older texts, anyway), it's involuntary in function.


You could, of course, consult a reputable A&P text or take a class, instead of searching for poorly-explained websites that neither take the time to distinguish between voluntary/involuntary in classification and voluntary/involuntary in function, nor why modern texts have largely abandoned voluntary/involuntary for classification of muscles in favor of smooth, cardiac and skeletal*. But then, that sounds suspiciously like work. Plus, you might learn something you don't want to know.


*Even "smooth, cardiac and skeletal" is a bit problematic as a classification scheme for muscles, since not all "skeletal" muscles actually attach to the skeleton. But what can you do?

Thanks for the explanation. I get it now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. If Lessans was correct about sight then how does his model explain 2 dimensional objects appearing as 3 dimensional with the use of special glasses (like in 3-d films or viewing 3-d paintings or photographs)? How does he explain that we can see and photograph rainbows, since rainbows are not objects? How does it explain how we can see and photograph asterism in a star sapphire since the star is not an object?

You handwaved these things away as "optical illusions" but they are not illusions at all. The scientific model of sight not only explains these, it predicts them, and that is how 3-d technology was developed, that is how stone cutters know how to reveal asterism.

Lessan's model of sight explains nothing and predicts nothing. So if he is even possibly correct, you should easily be able demonstrate it with one single example of something we can ALL observe, but the scientific model of sight is unable to explain.

Everything we see has to do with light. This is a fact. We would see rainbows the same way we see them now. There is no difference. The same for 3-d technology and anything else we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Editor

No, coward, they will recognize your lies, recognize your cowardice, and come to laugh at you as we laugh at you.

What a pathetic waste of human resources you remain.

--Ed.

I dont even know who you are. I never talked to you, and I never will talk to you. You are just one of the pack who stays in the background and comes in for the kill when the prey is down.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you can stop posting, put people on ignore, or respond, or do whatever you want. However the "barring" people from posting to you is just more histrionics.

And there is no witch hunt here. Goodness you are delusional.

I didn't mean bar; I meant ignore. Wow, what one mistaken word can cause. I don't even feel right putting anyone on ignore, let alone bar them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quite a lot of us were perfectly fair, respectful and civil to you in the beginning. You didn't exactly reciprocate. And that's why things changed.

I did not deserve the way people treated me here. I can see how one's views, if it contradicted something that was believed to be true, could have gotten someone killed in past centuries, in the name of truth and justice. It definitely shows me the nature of human beings hasn't changed.

[Awareness]

Everything we see has to do with light. This is a fact. We would see rainbows the same way we see them now. There is no difference. The same for 3-d technology and anything else we see.

Everything we see, is not everything we see Peacegirl.

You have to see everything in a different light, if you really want to see.

Being born again, but now with the knowledge you have.

Look really good around you, en let it sink in, so deep that you might get stuck in it, and when you start to panic, thats is when you meet the different light.

Light is light, it is just a mere attribute, I have been making it for 24 years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Be more specific. Give an example of two groupings that "are not twice with any other letter", and two groupings that "are twice with any other letter". Because I don't have the slightest fucking clue as to what you think you mean by that phrase. And I'm not alone.

I've put together a lot of exam questions, and if I ever gave a student a problem that was even half as shittily worded as your "puzzle", the students upon whom the question would be inflicted would be angry--and rightly so.

It makes sense to me. Not one of the letters of the 105 alphabetical blocks (that are arranged in groups of 3 and in 7 lines) is ever twice with the same letter. That means that A can only be with each letter once. B the same. C the same, and so on. It starts ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO. Now you have to figure out 6 more lines where the letters from A-O are never with the same letter twice. I don't know what else to tell you. I don't want to give the answers away. The proof he wrote down looks difficult.

[Awareness]

[quote=peacegirl;939080]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quite a lot of us were perfectly fair, respectful and civil to you in the beginning. You didn't exactly reciprocate. And that's why things changed.

I did not deserve the way people treated me here. I can see how one's views, if it contradicted something that was believed to be true, could have gotten someone killed in past centuries, in the name of truth and justice. It definitely shows me the nature of human beings hasn't changed.[/QUOTE]

I am waiting for some political figures to change.

But loonies just can not change,their soul (etheric body)is stuck thousands of miles away in some poor schmucks ass.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes sense to me.

Goodie fucking gumdrops. Have you missed the part where no one else seems to have the slightest fucking clue as to what you mean by "never twice with the same letter"?

Not one of the letters of the 105 alphabetical blocks (that are arranged in groups of 3 and in 7 lines) is ever twice with the same letter. That means that A can only be with each letter once. B the same. C the same, and so on. It starts ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO.

This clears absolutely nothing up. Give an example of a line in which A is "twice with the same letter".

[thedoc]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lessans main error was that he worked by himself, on his own, and was self taught. He never engaged anyone else to proof read or check for errors, instead he completed his book and then tried to present it to others with the idea that they would just automatically approve and endorse it. Many if not all books that I have read have acknowledged the assistance of others in proof reading and checking for errors. If Lessans had done this the book could have been shorter and easier to understand. As it is there are too many flaws and it is impossable to understand and agree with. Finally if his 'observations' had been properly documented, they could have been checked and reproduced, however that may have pointed up additional flaws in his reasoning.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How would you feel if one day it was proven that Lessans was right. I bet all of you would feel pretty rotten considering how I was treated in here.

I would realize that I had no choice, since there is no free will, and then I would think, "hmm, I guess I shouldn't feel too bad about it then."

Then I would probably go find someone with genitals to fall in love with.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I dont even know who you are.

We are legion.

I never talked to you, and I never will talk to you.

We do not care.

You are just one of the pack who stays in the background and comes in for the kill when the prey is down.

Hardly. Your continued contribution of lies, cowardice, and hypocrisy certainly does render you easy prey to anyone with minimal critical thinking skills, however.

--Ed.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe in order to prove whether dogs can recognize their masters from their facial features alone, it would have to be a very controlled experiment. One such experiment could be a large picture of the owner placed on a wall next to pictures of other people. No hats or glasses that the dog might be drawn to would be used. And all the people would look similar. Their hair styles, shape of face, etc. If the dog ran up to the picture of his owner and wagged his tail, or did any number of things (such as jump on the picture, scratch at the picture, sniff the picture, etc), that would be a pretty sure sign that he knew who his master was by his facial features alone. But the experiment would need to be replicated for reliability.

Please note that I did not ask you to describe an experiment that you think would provide sufficient evidence. I asked if you were willing (and able) to produce at least as much experimental data confirming that dogs cannot recognize their masters by their facial features alone as has already been presented confirming that some dogs can sometimes recognize their masters by their facial features alone.

If you fail to present any experimental data in support of your belief, then no one is under any obligation to take that belief seriously, even seriously enough to conduct new experiments.

Please do me the courtesy of addressing the questions I have actually asked you.