You don't know what it took for Lessans to "earn" what he will one day be remembered for, and it's the opposite of crackpot.
Neither he nor you have earned the authority that you try to gain by claiming you have done lots of research, by not sharing anything about that research. Or by claiming the book is "scientific" when the book has nothing to do with science.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.
Stop making this the only method that can be used to determine what is true. He did not have a method, don't you understand that? He wasn't looking to make a discovery. You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles. You are too quick to criticize them. Even your criticism of the right-of-way system is wrong, but maybe it's my fault for not explaining it better.
I was referring to your own research, but you are correct: it is clear he did not use any method for his research, relying purely on inspirations that you call "astute observations".
And what am I to make of this garbled mess of a sentence?
Quote:
You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles.
I assume this is the usual "It is YOUR fault the book makes no sense because you are (Stupid/Biased/Malicious - cross out what is not applicable)"?
Yes, I said that in an effort to resolve a contradiction that I don't believe exists.
Yes. You will say anything to try to make it look like Lessans is right - you will lie and deceive and manipulate. Because you are so convinced this he is right, you don't care about the fraud you have to undertake to persuade others (or yourself).
Absolutely despicable behaviour. We're just fortunate Lessans ideas are so obviously crackpottery that nobody else will ever believe your dishonest attempts at persuasion.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
I brought up photons because they are believed to have the pattern of the object they bounced off of, and as long as science holds this position, there is no way they will take this claim seriously because they believe it violates physics.
The nature of reflected light (wavelength, intensity, angle) provides information about the material it was reflected from. This is a fact. It can be empirically observed and consistently measured.
In that it is somewhat similar to sonar. The nature of the returning soundwaves (frequency, intensity, angle) provides information of what it was reflected from, and we can then use that information to create an image. Do you have similar problems with this aspect of sonar? Sonar Image
Quote:
Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source
Again, fact. Empirically observed and consistently measurable. Light energy exists separately from matter.
Quote:
or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history.
Light is energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into some other kind of energy. So light that has not been transformed into another kind of energy necessarily still exists as light...regardless of how long ago it was emitted. This is a fact.
As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.
Yes, it is going to be very difficult to get anyone to treat this as anything but a joke.
If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected.
Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Without the object present, there IS no image, which means we're back to square one.
You mean you're back to square one, and again back to making unsupported assertions that contradict observable reality.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
You don't know what it took for Lessans to "earn" what he will one day be remembered for, and it's the opposite of crackpot.
Neither he nor you have earned the authority that you try to gain by claiming you have done lots of research, by not sharing anything about that research. Or by claiming the book is "scientific" when the book has nothing to do with science.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.
Stop making this the only method that can be used to determine what is true. He did not have a method, don't you understand that? He wasn't looking to make a discovery. You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles. You are too quick to criticize them. Even your criticism of the right-of-way system is wrong, but maybe it's my fault for not explaining it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I was referring to your own research, but you are correct: it is clear he did not use any method for his research, relying purely on inspirations that you call "astute observations".
B*#*$ S**$%, you were not referring to my own research. Why would you say this Vivisectus? I can't even read further because of your comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
And what am I to make of this garbled mess of a sentence?
Quote:
You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles.
I assume this is the usual "It is YOUR fault the book makes no sense because you are (Stupid/Biased/Malicious - cross out what is not applicable)"?
There you go. This is tit for tat. I'm not interested anymore. This discussion has gone on not for the purpose of truly understanding his claims, but to mock them. You did a great job, but don't post anymore because I have no desire interacting with you.
As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.
Yes, it is going to be very difficult to get anyone to treat this as anything but a joke.
That is why I'm going to leave. This gave me time in between marketing, but there is no way in hell that anyone would take this discovery seriously from the input in here, not because it's not serious, mind you, but because of the way it's been portrayed. I don't care what you have to say specious, so don't say it.
There was another post where I said photons are light. I brought up photons because they are believed to have the pattern of the object they bounced off of, and as long as science holds this position, there is no way they will take this claim seriously because they believe it violates physics. Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source, or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history. Now if science holds this position, everything I say will look like total nonsense. My question is why are people still here? Are they here just to see how far I will go to twist things to make things fit into a worldview that I can't seem to let go of? I guess that's it.
Science does not believe that light (photons) carry the pattern, or image, of an object "on the wings of light", that was Lessans misunderstanding of optics. Science does hold a position about light and optics that is based on many years of observation, tests, and experiments that have all given the same results, and no observations, tests, or experiments that show anything different. What you say is nonsense, it is not supported by any data or rational thought, only the wild imaginings of a poorly educated man who thought his unsupported ideas were more valid than data that has been supported by real research and understanding.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Lessans ideas were the result of "Ivory Tower Thinking" where people believe that the human mind can discover truth with ever bothering to observe the real world. They believe that the human mind can concieve of how things "Ought" to be and this knowledge will be more valid that observing the real world. Lessans whole "Golden Age" was a product of his imagination without any reference to the real world and how it functions, he believe that he could concieve of how the world "Ought" to work and these ideas would be more valid than anything science could discover by obserfing reality.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
You don't know what it took for Lessans to "earn" what he will one day be remembered for, and it's the opposite of crackpot.
Neither he nor you have earned the authority that you try to gain by claiming you have done lots of research, by not sharing anything about that research. Or by claiming the book is "scientific" when the book has nothing to do with science.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.
Stop making this the only method that can be used to determine what is true. He did not have a method, don't you understand that? He wasn't looking to make a discovery. You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles. You are too quick to criticize them. Even your criticism of the right-of-way system is wrong, but maybe it's my fault for not explaining it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I was referring to your own research, but you are correct: it is clear he did not use any method for his research, relying purely on inspirations that you call "astute observations".
B*#*$ S**$%, you were not referring to my own research. Why would you say this Vivisectus? I can't even read further because of your comment.
I was, actually. I meant it would be very easy to clear up the doubts about the quality of your research into child safety by simply sharing it.
I already know that no trace of the research your father was supposed to have done remains. It seems to have consisted solely of reading and what we shall call inspirations just to be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
And what am I to make of this garbled mess of a sentence?
Quote:
Quote:
You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles.
I assume this is the usual "It is YOUR fault the book makes no sense because you are (Stupid/Biased/Malicious - cross out what is not applicable)"?
There you go. This is tit for tat. I'm not interested anymore. This discussion has gone on not for the purpose of truly understanding his claims, but to mock them. You did a great job, but don't post anymore because I have no desire interacting with you.
You say that every time it becomes abundantly clear even to you that your ideas are irrational. Amazing how such irrational, biased and unfounded criticism is still completely impossible for you to refute without hissy fits, appeals to emotion, appeals to special standards, and even outright contradiction such as your famous photons that are in two places at the same time.
But apparently, that too is someone else's fault!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source, or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history. Now if science holds this position, everything I say will look like total nonsense.
Indeed: as long as people think it is impossible that a photon can somehow be at two places at the same time when they are looked at, this idea is going to seem particularly nonsensical. But that is not because the position that photons cannot be in two places at the same time is unreasonable: quite the reverse. You idea is impossible, as it relies on impossible things ocurring.
You could use your excuse for anything: just because cameras, when at very great altitude, make pictures that make the earth seem round, makes it seem that the idea that the earth is flat seem ridiculous. Just because it looks like babies come from semen and an ovum, makes the idea that babies are created by faries look silly...
As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.
Yes, it is going to be very difficult to get anyone to treat this as anything but a joke.
So what's on the list for your marketing plan so far, peacegirl? AFAICT all you've said about it so far is that you're going to look for a well-known and credible person to do the work for you. Is that your only plan? Who do you have on your list to contact? What is plan B if no one will take it seriously and agree to help you? Have you ever tried to present this material verbally to a group in a lecture series format? That might be very good practice for you and you can set it up so that no one gets to interrupt you when you don't make sense.
[Lessans] did not have a method, don't you understand that?
At long last, a statement on which everyone can agree.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Yes, I said that in an effort to resolve a contradiction that I don't believe exists.
Yes. You will say anything to try to make it look like Lessans is right - you will lie and deceive and manipulate. Because you are so convinced this he is right, you don't care about the fraud you have to undertake to persuade others (or yourself).
Absolutely despicable behaviour. We're just fortunate Lessans ideas are so obviously crackpottery that nobody else will ever believe your dishonest attempts at persuasion.
Despicable? You can look down on me all you want, but this discovery is not crackpottery. And my attempts have not been dishonest, although they may have been misunderstood.
As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.
Yes, it is going to be very difficult to get anyone to treat this as anything but a joke.
So what's on the list for your marketing plan so far, peacegirl? AFAICT all you've said about it so far is that you're going to look for a well-known and credible person to do the work for you.
Do the work for me? What's that supposed to mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Is that your only plan? Who do you have on your list to contact? What is plan B if no one will take it seriously and agree to help you?
I'm not sure. Social media is not an easy way to go, but it's better than nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Have you ever tried to present this material verbally to a group in a lecture series format? That might be very good practice for you and you can set it up so that no one gets to interrupt you when you don't make sense.
Why do you always end your post with sarcasm? Never mind. I will contact some radio stations and see if I can get an interview that is prerecorded. This is such a difficult topic that it could easily confuse people as it has done in here if they haven't actually read the book. A live radio show could probably do me harm because it could easily turn into a fiasco.
Radio! You should get in touch with Bill. In fact, I think the two of you would probably get along amazingly. Bill recently did an interview with a radio show, and he was very pleased with the result:
Lessans ideas were the result of "Ivory Tower Thinking" where people believe that the human mind can discover truth with ever bothering to observe the real world.
Bothering to observe the real world? He did more observing than you'll ever do in a lifetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
They believe that the human mind can concieve of how things "Ought" to be and this knowledge will be more valid that observing the real world.
Again, this was your attitude from day one. You used this thread as a way to elevate yourself. You give yourself more credit than you should because you are not capable of determining whether Lessans' discovery is valid or not. Give it up thedoc because you are looking more and more ignorant than you already are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Lessans whole "Golden Age" was a product of his imagination without any reference to the real world and how it functions, he believe that he could concieve of how the world "Ought" to work and these ideas would be more valid than anything science could discover by obserfing reality.
Would you shut up about the real world? You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what is real and what isn't. This has nothing to do with Oughts.
[Lessans] did not have a method, don't you understand that?
At long last, a statement on which everyone can agree.
You know what I meant.
Nope. The only evidence I have of what you mean is what you write. How am I or anyone else supposed to know what "meant" when it's completely different from what you posted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The SCIENTIFIC method ...
Okay. So if you meant to say that Lessans didn't use the scientific method, then why did you write that he "did not have a method" at all? Your command of the language can most charitably be described as poor, but I reckon that total immersion in the Sacred Text would do that to anyone. Clarity and coherence are our friends, long lost friends in your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
... which happens to be wrong half the time.
Did you really mean that the scientific method itself is wrong, but only half the time? If so, because the statement is wholly nonsensical.
If, on the other hand, you meant to say that the scientific method produces incorrect results half the time, then that's what you should have written. You also should have backed it up. Can you do that?
lol no you can't.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Radio! You should get in touch with Bill. In fact, I think the two of you would probably get along amazingly. Bill recently did an interview with a radio show, and he was very pleased with the result:
My question is why are people still here? Are they here just to see how far I will go to twist things to make things fit into a worldview that I can't seem to let go of? I guess that's it.
Well, it is fascinating to observe just how willing you are to dissemble, distort, and outright lie in support of your "Lessans is infallible, and reality itself must be wrong if it conflicts with Lessans' claims" premise.
"Fascinating" in much the same way that a train wreck is fascinating, but fascinating nonetheless.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Well, you've mentioned any number of times that you need someone well-known to introduce and endorse your dad's discovery to the audience that they worked so hard to gain and lend their credibility to the book and the ideas set forth in it. Other than sending them an email to ask them to do it I'm not seeing what contribution you'll be making to the marketing effort if they say yes. Do you have a list of the people that you plan to contact and the body of the email drafted yet? Those would be good first steps that don't entail contacting anyone until you feel ready. It would be best to sit down and work out a marketing plan from beginning to end but since that's hard for a beginner to do it would be fine to just take it a small step at a time.
Quote:
Social media is not an easy way to go, but it's better than nothing.
It should definitely be part of a marketing plan but no, it's not easy. I'm sure that any number of people here could help you figure out strategies and ways to get noticed without spamming people. I only know how to do it for small retail businesses (at least in theory) but it's not like "if you build it, they will come".
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Have you ever tried to present this material verbally to a group in a lecture series format? That might be very good practice for you and you can set it up so that no one gets to interrupt you when you don't make sense.
Quote:
Why do you always end your post with sarcasm? Never mind. I will contact some radio stations and see if I can get an interview that is prerecorded. This is such a difficult topic that it could easily confuse people as it has done in here if they haven't actually read the book. A live radio show could probably do me harm because it could easily turn into a fiasco.
Snark and sarcasm aren't exactly the same but it's not easy to always be pleasant when you're perfectly comfortable with being difficult and evading direct questions. It's easier to make fun of some of the more unprofessional things that you do and say as you try to present this and hope that you get the point. You've made it perfectly clear over and over that you wish that people would just STFU, take your word for it all, read the entire book, accept it verbatim, not challenge a word of it and be quiet unless their opinion is full of gushing praise. Welcome to the real world.
I think that before you aim for a radio show you should try to do some free lectures at universities, libraries, coffee shops and anywhere else in your area that hosts talks because you need practice. I've done lots of public speaking and radio shows and public speaking is a lot easier because not only are people generally more polite but you can gauge their reaction by their body language and expressions and fine tune your presentation accordingly. You'll probably end up with slightly different presentations depending on the the type of group that you're speaking to. You can't tell how you're coming across in a pre-taped show and it isn't like they're going to edit parts out afterwards just because you don't like them or think that you were attacked. The talk show host has all of the power in the situation and can make a complete ass of you just by the way that it gets edited and if they take live calls it can be even worse. It's really only a safe bet if you know that the station and host don't have an opposing agenda and the show isn't meant to be a brawl. If you do a lecture, you're in control and can set the format any way that you want to. It's not at all uncommon for lecturers to request that people save their questions for the end and at least you'd get all the way through it.
Re: A revolution in thought
because the statement is wholly nonsensical.
Linear Mode
