A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I spent one to two weeks on Twitter and didn't like it. Look at the dates.

Do you actually think that people can't or won't check? A 10-second check reveals that this is [yet another] bald-faced lie on your part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it turns out he was right then...we will say "Oh he was right". You will still be a weaseling, lying, hypocrite because you have weaseled and lied and been hypocritical. Whether Lessans is right or wrong doesn't change the nature of your actions.

I don't believe I have ever lied (which is an intentional act to deceive). Maybe I have weaseled a bit (considering the position people have put me in) but I'm not a hypocrite. The fact is who cares? I'm not that interesting. It doesn't change anything in regard to the validity of this knowledge, which is all I care about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have been looking back. You started the name calling, by calling me bitter and angry. You said we were closed minded, easily confused, and accused us of unfair expectations that we never expressed. You went all persecuted martyr day 1 and here you are three years later still whining the same whine and fantasizing about your future vindication. You keep coming back to because you absolutely love playing the victim.

Stating that he will be vindicated is not whining. Yes, it is a fantasy. So what? I didn't come back to play the victim, I came to wish everyone a happy Memorial Day. I am entitled. My coming back does not automatically make me a victim. You don't want me here because it's time consuming but you can't seem to stay away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"What If' is a rather useless game to play. As you have said, "The proof of the pudding, is in the eating." People here have been hungry for over 3 years, and are still not satisfied. If your father's ideas were valid, that satisfaction should have happened from the beginning.

That is not true whatsoever. The free will/determinism debate has been going on for centuries so it is not surprising that people don't get it.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Vindication in the future, based on the results of tests, that you can't even specify, and that would contradict all the empirical evidence gathered thus far, is of little value in the real world. Show us his observations so that we can verify, or not, for ourselves.

He gave his observations regarding the eyes, and how he came to his conclusions indirectly. This part of the discussion is futile.

Originally Posted by thedoc

"His observations were spot on, and you just have to trust me." doesn't cut it in the real world.

It was a lot more than "his observations were spot on" if you had at all studied what he wrote. You did no such thing.

[peacegirl]

added to previous post:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're welcome. How's Archie holding up?

Flossy says hai.

Archie says hai back. Archie is not the one that was ill. My dog Zoe was. She has made a come back. Her gastro problems have cleared up, and her coughing is gone. It was a long 6 weeks, plus I was sick too. She is finally eating. I was feeding her with a syringe because she was getting so skinny. It would never have been enough food over the long haul. I'm so happy she's doing better. I treat her with her favorite food; cheeseburgers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You and Davidm have driven me out of here.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Dude, you're still here. A six-week hiatus, though a big step in the right direction for you, hardly qualifies as leaving.

I'm not counting the days I'm gone. You make it sound like a momentous event, like BC or AD. BF or AF (funny) It's not that important. Why are you counting? Did you miss me that much?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Too late, we already know, at least those who have read, at least, part of the book.

I just wonder who tied his shoes for him, were you his "favorite" daughter?

You're right. It is too late with this group. He had no favorites.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This exchange happened your first day

Yes, it happened early on because he said this is a scientific discovery. I was unaware that scientific had a very narrow definition. That being said still does not change the fact that his observations are valuable, and should not be dismissed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I get that you expect it to be scientifically validated, but as it isn't science, that is an unreasonable expectation.

It can and will be scientifically validated one day. When? I cannot predict. The only thing I am asking is for people to keep an open mind. I have learned a lot in here as to what not to do. I will definitely not put up with another round of disrespect from this group or any other group (facebook and twitter included).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been allowed to say anything you want for three years. We know you believe he was right because you believe he made astute observations that are spot on. You've told us that as your only justification time and again.

Your personal convictions are not compelling to me.

That is because you don't even grasp why determinism is not a modal fallacy. This is not about my personal conviction LadyShea, and you know it. The noise in here has gotten so loud that I don't think people even understand why "greater satisfaction", although tautalogical in the sense that whatever one chooses is in this direction, has major implications under the changed conditions of a no free will environment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again with my ruining it for your imaginary interested lurkers.

How do you know they are all imaginary? Did you check the stats?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have your own platforms to discuss this with interested people. You have a Facebook page and a Twitter account, and an email address on the website. You can go set up a Google+ account and a blog in less than an hour if you want to talk to your imaginary friends. Those I have "cut off" can easily engage you elsewhere, right? You don't need do you? If so, why?

Your sarcasm isn't impressive. I have no desire to continue with facebook and twitter. It took me less than a week to realize that this is not the way to go. I feel like this book is much too important to announce it this way. People will not take it seriously, and even if they do, it will be a lot of energy for just a few buyers. There are plenty of indie authors out there, and they are making some progress marketing their books, but until I get some influential person involved I will have a difficult time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please note that for the 6 weeks you were gone, only thedoc posted in this thread and was not responded to. There are no lurkers.

So only you, thedoc, Stephen Maturin, the Lone Ranger, and Davidm are reading these posts? How do you know others aren't listening in?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why are you addressing me and talking shit instead of ignoring me and/or going away from me forever?

Why are you putting the burden on me? Why not go away from this thread and be done with it?

You are basing all of your knowledge on empiricism, which is the reason why you think you refuse to listen, but you are wrong as is Lone Ranger and Davidm.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I invite you to demonstrate my wrongness rather than merely asserting it for the umpteenth time. You can't though.

I have shown you where you are wrong. I think you got confused over the word "compelled" in regard to the two-sided equation, which my father tried to clarify. It went over most people's heads so you're not the only one.

You are so true to your cronies (and don't tell me that this doesn't have an influence on what you say)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has no influence on what I say. In fact, many of my so called "cronies" think I am crazy and wrong for continuing to engage you.

So why are you? If you ignore me, it will be one less person to engage with, which will speed up my leaving.

that you can't see the impact of your comments on the lurkers (although I realize this is not your responsibility).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are no lurkers. You imagined them, remember? We went through this.

No, I did not imagine them. There are some bots for sure but that does not mean that there are no lurkers at all. Is there a way for you to check the stats, or is that only privy to the administrator?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't bring that incident into the conversation, you did. You judged the action as a positive thing that demonstrated good qualities...don't blame me for judging the action differently than you did.

I did not bring the fact that he burned his books as a good quality. I wasn't judging his actions. You were. To call what he did irrational is presupposing that his reasoning was not coherent. You are back on your high horse once again. No surprise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is what I mean about you. You lie so often, so compulsively, as effortlessly as breathing, that you don't seem to know or care that your lies can be checked.

Look at the dates?

Two weeks, eh? Well, the bottom-most tweet on the page is dated March 3. Probably there are earlier pages, but I couldn't be arsed to look for them. And the most recent tweet is from yesterday.

Someone retweeted a message, so I thanked her. That was my tweet. That does not count as being active on twitter David.

Originally Posted by davidm

Two weeks? That is three months right there.

LOL. No, you're not "going that route!"

I have to check when I signed up but I highly doubt it was 3 months. I couldn't take it that long. Twitter is time consuming and boring. I don't enjoy small talk, and a limited number of characters to share a tweet is difficult. It might be good for some things, but not this. I may be wrong but I just don't feel drawn to this type of advertising.

Originally Posted by david

Any luck rounding up the reviewers you claim you don't even want but keep begging for, as recently as yesterday?

I told you that I have not been looking for reviewers. The last reviewer did a terrible job. This book requires a lot of study, not a quick overview. I'm sure you can understand that.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Archie is not the one that was ill. My dog Zoe was.

Yes, I know. You'd given us update on Zoe, so I followed up by asking for an update on the other pup.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I treat her with her favorite food; cheeseburgers.

Awesome. That'll put some meat back on her bones.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you actually think that people can't or won't check? A 10-second check reveals that this is [yet another] bald-faced lie on your part.

I told you that your definition of lie and my definition are at odds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes, I know. You'd given us update on Zoe, so I followed up by asking for an update on the other pup.

That was sweet. Thanks for asking. Archie is doing fine. He's about 7 years old now. He seemed to know that Zoe was ill and didn't bother her too much.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I treat her with her favorite food; cheeseburgers.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Awesome. That'll put some meat back on her bones.

That's my hope. She is getting up there in age so I'm hoping her frailness is not due to that. I already see a change. Her spine and ribs are not as prominent but she still needs more meat on her bones, as you put it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thedoc, I am allowing you to talk to me but only under certain conditions. If you continue to attack without asking questions, you will be immediately put back on ignore.

I have asked you several questions that you have ignored. When you ignore them I do not press the questions, because I have seen that you are not in the practice of answering questions. The problem is that you see some question as an attack and not a request for information. I can only assume that you either do not have the answer to the question or refuse to give it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He gave his observations regarding the eyes, and how he came to his conclusions indirectly.

He gave his conclusions regarding the eyes, and why he believed this to be true, but he did not tell us what or who he observed that lead him to those conclusions. What was his original research? What or who was he looking at or reading when these ideas came to him? Perhaps with this information others could observe similar situations and validate his conclusions, or not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had no favorites.

So you were all just accessories to his marriage? Any honest parent will admit to having favorites, perhaps one is a favorite as far as sports, and another appreciates the same kind of music. Parents may treat all their children equally, or they may treat each as each needs, but to deny favorites is a lie.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was unaware that scientific had a very narrow definition.
.

Yes, one of the many things that you and Lessans seemed to be unaware of.
Psychology, Philosophy, Optics, Physics, Cosmology, just to name a few, and yet he spewed forth many pronouncements about that which he know little or nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have asked you several questions that you have ignored. When you ignore them I do not press the questions, because I have seen that you are not in the practice of answering questions. The problem is that you see some question as an attack and not a request for information. I can only assume that you either do not have the answer to the question or refuse to give it.

You have very few questions thedoc. From what I see, you don't understand the first thing about this book even after three years of discussion. You still don't understand why, under the changed conditions, no one will need a license to do certain things and why this will increase responsibility, not decrease it. I will be surprised if you are able to stay a participant with me. It's gotten so habitual for you to respond in a knee-jerk reaction that I don't think you'll be able to resist this behavior for too long. I've got my finger on the ignore button just in case. Good luck!

[peacegirl]

This is touching. Please pass it on so our world becomes a better place.

The Whittington Family: Ryland's Story - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will definitely not put up with another round of disrespect from this group or any other group.

Respect and disrespect is earned by words or actions. You and your father have gotten exactly what your words have earned.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have very few questions thedoc. From what I see, you don't understand the first thing about this book even after three years of discussion. You still don't understand why, under the changed conditions, no one will need a license to do certain things and why this will increase responsibility, not decrease it.

You could start by answering the few questions I did ask.

I understand what you and Lessans are saying about the changed conditions and the need for licenses, I just don't agree that it will work, and in your mind disagreement equals not understanding. Human nature will not change just because you remove specific requirements. You and your father claim that responsibility will increase, but you have given no reason to believe that this will be the case, and copy pasting from the book isn't good enough. Lessans writing was not clear at all, and you don't seem to be able to explain anything yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi friends, just want to say happy Memorial Day. I am not here to argue, just want to say hello.

The eternal victim returns, and opens with a complete lie straight off the bat. Exactly as she has done every previous time she has returned after attempting to leave.