A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

I already participated in a conversation with you, on IIDB (registration required). This is just "second verse, same as the first". I'm only here for teh lulz.

Cynthia, I can state with confidence that you don't understand his discovery.

Originally Posted by Cynthia

You state with confidence many things that aren't true, so one more isn't going to surprise anyone. What's to understand? There is no discovery to be found here. There's whining, pouting, sulking, assertions, illusions, delusions, factual errors, logical errors, grammar errors, grandiosity, narcissism, arrogance, ignorance, and garden-variety stupidity on the part of the author, compounded by the whining, pouting, sulking, assertions, illusions, delusions, factual errors, logical errors, grammar errors, grandiosity, narcissism, arrogance, ignorance, and garden-variety stupidity added by his loving daughter. None of this is anything new or mindblowing, at least not in the intellectual sense. As a case study in the heritability of Dunning-Kruger syndrome it has a certain je ne sais quoi.

This is what is so very sad about this thread; it does appear how you describe because of all the things people have said about him and me. Any newcomer would immediately side with the anti-Lessans haters because they are so overpowering. But in answer to your charges, Lessans never pouted (I'm serious, never once, he wasn't that type), never sulked (I never saw him sulk or feel sorry for himself a day in his life), never made assertions (only astute observations), never had illusions of any kind although he said free will is an illusion, never had delusions of any kind, although he said man was deluded into believing in free will, was not ignorant (what a joke), made no logical errors as far as this book is concerned, had no thoughts of grandiosity; was not narcissistic (this is insane), and was definitely not stupid (if you think making a discovery that can and will better our world stupid, then you better think again). The only thing that there could be are some grammatical errors or typos, which I hope considering the magnitude of this work these small errors can be overlooked. If not, this book is not for you. I admit that I may have sulked, pouted, made some logical errors in trying to explain why the eyes are not a sense organ, but that's about it. This should not be a reason to dismiss this book because most of the accusations are baseless and unfounded, which no one seems to care about.

I just went to the archive and it said this part of the archive is not accessible. I logged in so that wasn't the problem.

Originally Posted by Cynthia

I'm looking at it right now, so I can state with confidence (and more importantly, with evidence) that the problem lies with you.

I don't know what the problem is then. I'll try again but it keeps saying no access to this archive. Maybe they won't allow me to have access to it. Who knows.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This woman is so very knowledgeable about this subject matter.

Nothing in the article you linked supports that contention.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She has every right to blame her child's disability on vaccines if she believes there was a direct cause and effect association between the time the vaccine was given and her child's reaction to it.

"Believes"? What's this "believes" crap? According to you, she was proffering facts, not beliefs. Please make up your li'l bity mind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who would spend their entire adult life sharing their story as well as trying to inform others of potential risk factors, if they didn't feel strongly that vaccines were the cause of their child's subsequent health problems?

Here's a prime example of what they used to call Oprahfication, the notion that a viewpoint is automatically entitled to serious consideration just because people "feel strongly" about it. Of course, that's nonsense. A viewpoint's tenability has precisely dick to do with the strength of its adherents' feelings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the things I said to mean what you thought.

Oh my, you are gibbering uncontrollably. Please put down the alcohol and step away from the computer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It did sound funny, I agree, but that's because the words didn't come out right.

Earlier today you were claiming that you never said it at all.

You're a liar.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what the problem is then. I'll try again but it keeps saying no access to this archive. Maybe they won't allow me to have access to it. Who knows.

Maybe the site remembers you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But you have never explained it in any meaningful way, it's always "go back and read the book again", or you copy paste from the book.

I have numerous times. If you had paid more attention instead of tell me that he has nothing valuable in just about every one of your posts, maybe you would have understood more.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Most of the regulars are still here, what will your excuse be then.

Three are on ignore. Soon no one will be left if we keep going at this rate, and then I will leave because I will not take the namecalling anymore. Now LadyShea is on probation for calling me an idiot. If she goes, the conversation will probably die off because she was the only one that participated on a consistent basis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, this is familiar:

1.) peacegirl makes a staggeringly ignorant-- indeed, downright idiotic claim

2.) lots of people point out that it's an idiotic claim -- providing detailed explanations and relevant citations

3.) peacegirl ignores all of that and repeats the claim, insisting that anyone who doesn't accept the idiotic claim is too stupid and/or close-minded to comprehend it

4.) lots of people provide even more detailed explanations of how idiotic the claim is

5.) eventually, it dawns on her that the claim really is idiotic

I ADMIT I MADE A CLAIM THAT WAS INCORRECT. THE REASON I AM WAFFLING IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT THAT MISSTEP TO BE USED AGAINST LESSANS. HE DIDN'T MAKE THIS CLAIM, I DID, AND HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR MY MISTAKE.


6.) peacegirl lies brazenly, insisting that she never made any such claim -- and that anyone who says otherwise is a big meanie who is deliberately mis-representing the "discoveries" of Saint Seymour the Infallible

WHY DO YOU MAKE FUN OF ME AND HIM? FOR WHAT REASON OTHER THAN YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS A DISCOVERY SO YOU FEEL JUSTIFIED TO DEFILE HIS MEMORY. YOU WOULD NOT CALL EINSTEIN SAINT ALBERT THE INFALLIBLE, BECAUSE IT'S DOWNRIGHT DISRESPECTFUL, AND YOU KNOW IT.

7.) people quote her own words back to her, demonstrating that she did, indeed, make the idiotic claim

8.) peacegirl has a hissy fit, calls people names, threatens to put people on Pretend Ignore, insists she's being persecuted, and claims that this is the final straw that fit the camel through the eye of a needle and so she's leaving forever

9.) peacegirl waits a whole 5 minutes or so before her next post -- in which she tries to change the topic, desperately hoping that everyone else has as short an attention span and memory as she does

10.) rinse and repeat

THAT MADE ME LAUGH WHEN YOU SAID I WAIT A WHOLE 5 MINUTES UNTIL MY NEXT POST. BUT IT IS GETTING CLOSE TO THE FINAL STRAW; I AM NOT TALKING TO THREE PEOPLE ANYMORE. WE'RE COMING DOWN TO THE WIRE UNLESS NEW PEOPLE SHOW AN INTEREST.

[Stephen Maturin]

You're incapable of leaving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just what interesting conversation could have taken place that was more interesting than watching you dodge and evade questions and comments about the book. The most interesting part of this thread has been what everyone else has posted to correct the fantasy from you and your father.

That might have been a good lulz for you, but the truth is if you had kept an open mind and tried to understood the significance of this book and what it means for the benefit of our world, you would have gotten much more out of this thread. It's too late for that now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

All the statics in the article back up the benefits of having as many people vaccinated as possible. Feelings and belief should not outweigh hard evidence, and the evidence points to the benefits of vaccination. Peacegirl did you even read beyond the headline.

I watched all three videos, did you? What article are you talking about?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...exemption.aspx

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the things I said to mean what you thought.

You said you "never used the term internet checkers" despite having used the term. That was my point

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are totally out the door LadyShea; you deny anything that doesn't suit your fancy because you love to argue for the sake of argument, even when there is solid evidence staring you in the face. This woman is so very knowledgeable about this subject matter. She has every right to blame her child's disability on vaccines if she believes there was a direct cause and effect association between the time the vaccine was given and her child's reaction to it. Who would spend their entire adult life sharing their story as well as trying to inform others of potential risk factors, if they didn't feel strongly that vaccines were the cause of their child's subsequent health problems? She is also very careful to back up everything she says with statistics.

She has an extreme anti-vaccine bias and all of her "knowledge" is filtered through that. There is no reason to assume she is stating facts.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...if you had kept an open mind and tried to understood the significance of this book and what it means for the benefit of our world, you would have gotten much more out of this thread. It's too late for that now.

peacegirl, you could save a lot of time by making the above your signature.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to the Bible, God loves every person unconditionally; that doesn't mean he is proud of everything they do. That last sentence was for Angakuk.

We were talking about respect. Love and respect are not equivalent terms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Bible.

Book, chapter and verse, please.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Through man's actions, which proves God (or for the benefit of the atheists, a mathematical revelation) a reality.

By this reasoning when people do not show respect for others then it follows that God also does not respect them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, she mentioned the disease which was not even what was under discussion. You're right, I didn't read carefully. So what. I never said I was perfect, and for people to think that this mistake makes the entire book a mistake is the most illogical form of reasoning I have yet to encounter.

No one here has used that form of reasoning.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Three are on ignore. Soon no one will be left if we keep going at this rate, and then I will leave because I will not take the name calling anymore. Now LadyShea is on probation for calling me an idiot. If she goes, the conversation will probably die off because she was the only one that participated on a consistent basis.

We all know about your 'pretend ignore' and that you only respond when you are feeling particularly threatened. We also know that you crave the negative attention and the name calling because it reinforces your martyr complex.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said you "never used the term internet checkers" despite having used the term. That was my point

No, your point was to find any reason to call me "idiot" so you could make me look bad. You and everyone else have done so well in this regard that there is no possible way that a serious discussion could take place. If you look back 3/4 of the posts are from angry namecalling people who have twisted everything I have ever written into something unrecognizable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, your point was to find any reason to call me "idiot" so you could make me look bad.

Backwards. I rarely call you names straight up like that, only when it's something really bad. This one was such an egregious lie though. How could you forget Internet Checkers after the huge deal that got made about it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

We all know about your 'pretend ignore' and that you only respond when you are feeling particularly threatened. We also know that you crave the negative attention and the name calling because it reinforces your martyr complex.

There you go again without even a slight pause. You can't stop with the negative posts, which is why you've gotten nothing from this thread. You've made your bed, now you must lie in it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Backwards. I rarely call you names straight up like that, only when it's something really bad. This one was such an egregious lie though. How could you forget Internet Checkers after the huge deal that got made about it?

Egregious lie? That sounds like I purposely lied under oath in a murder trial. Boy can you exaggerate LadyShea!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She has an extreme anti-vaccine bias and all of her "knowledge" is filtered through that. There is no reason to assume she is stating facts.

So don't assume. Find out LadyShea before you bash her efforts to help people become more informed so they can make an informed choice. Isn't that what you regard so highly? Researching the facts?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Maybe the site remembers you?

There definitely is a way to block people, so maybe they did this because they didn't want me resuming the conversation. I tried again and it didn't work. It says you do not have access to this archive.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again without even a slight pause. You can't stop with the negative posts...

Well that is what you come here for, so you should be thanking us for giving you exactly what you want.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

She has every right to blame her child's disability on vaccines if she believes there was a direct cause and effect association between the time the vaccine was given and her child's reaction to it.

Indeed: and I have every right to blame the appearance of new babies on my wife's eating of pickles if I "believe there is a direct cause and effect association between the time (?) she eats pickles and the appearance of new family members".

But since I have no evidence that shows that one causes the other, I would be wrong to make that assumption, no matter how much I believe it. It is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Egregious lie? That sounds like I purposely lied under oath in a murder trial. Boy can you exaggerate LadyShea!

Only a histrionic such as yourself -with your imaginings of book burnings, witch hunts, and crucifixions- would find the word egregious so over the top as to bring to mind murder trials.

Jeez, who is the exaggerator?

[Vivisectus]

Anyroad - hows the book-marketing? Last time I checked, the situation was as follows:

Results:

Books sold: 0
People convinced: 0
Estimated date of revolution: unspecified time after we are all dead.
Amount of crow eaten by detractors: 0 crows.

Enablers:

Meaningful changes made to marketing approach: 0
Meaningful changes made to website: 0
Skills acquired to market book: 0
Time spent acquiring relevant skills: 0
Time spent on relevant tasks: 0

Tasks achieved this week:

Read some stuff on the internet
Posted on the freethought forum about how I am not talking to people anymore and how they are all biased.

So, whats changed this week?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Egregious lie? That sounds like I purposely lied under oath in a murder trial. Boy can you exaggerate LadyShea!

And let's not forget: You didn't just say "I don't remember using that term" or even "I never used that term" you went on to accuse Maturin of having coined the term maliciously. That's pretty flagrant. So get right the fuck over yourself on that one.