A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is it your account? If so then yes, it is you that is tweeting, because tweets are coming from your account. If you aren't manually doing that tweeting, then you have set up an autotweet program to send those out every day...which is still your doing, so still you tweeting through your account. How can you possible say you're not responsible for your own account and its content?

If I set up an auto-dialer to call your home phone every day at 3pm, would you say that I was not the one calling you simply because I didn't pick up and dial the phone with my own hands?

Your account has tweets from it every day, and you claimed you weren't using Twitter and told us to check the dates, which we did. Tweets every day for 3 months.

How would anyone know, or suspect, that those daily tweets on your account weren't from you? I deduced that it was programmed because the tweets were at the same time every day, but my conclusion may have been wrong. I didn't even know sending them automatically from a basic account was possible. How did you do it?

You should admit that despite your claims that you weren't using Twitter, there are daily tweets on your account asking for reviews. You told us to check the dates and we did, and there were daily tweets. You should apologize to us for not even checking your own account to see that we were right, that there are tweets there every day, that it is an active Twitter account under your name, that it wasn't abandoned weeks ago as you claimed.

I never said I wasn't using Twitter. I said I'm not going that route, which is true. I learned from the few weeks I tried it. I DID NOT LIE AND YOU WILL NOT MESS UP MY REPUTATION AS AN HONEST PERSON BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I'M LYING.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I wasn't using Twitter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Checked the dates. There are daily tweets for 3 months right up until the date of your post above. So your above statement is not factual. What do you call a non-factual statement, peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I signed up for a few inexpensive marketing strategies. I have no idea how long they are running, since I am paying them nothing anymore. I paid a fee when I thought this may be a good way to go. Now I don't. Where have a lied? Admit that you were mistaken.

BookBuzzr has a monthly fee. How many months did you pay for in advance?

You lied by saying you had not been using Twitter after only one to two weeks from sign up (in early March) and told us to check the dates, when there were very recent tweets on your account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BookBuzzr has a monthly fee. How many months did you pay for in advance?

You lied by saying you had not been using Twitter after only one to two weeks from sign up (in early March) and told us to check the dates, when there were very recent tweets on your account.

LadyShea, I am getting very tired of your insinuations. I am not using Twitter as a means of marketing, period. No one asked me if I had used Twitter. I did try it months ago, but I am not using it now. Like I said, I am not going that route at least for now. What I said to David was accurate. I stopped as soon as I realized it's a waste of my time. I am not tweeting actively. I paid $5 to BookBuzzer for one month, but put a hold on any further payments. Another book club I paid $25 and they tweet for you for an extended period of time. You are anal, but you are no better an investigator than anyone else. You're just a big snoop, and you try to twist the meaning of my words to fit your agenda. That's what everyone in here is doing just so they can be comfortable with the idea that their attacks against Lessans are justified. BTW, Freado and Bookbuzzr are the same people. You all sound so much alike it's scary. Let me repeat because you don't seem to get it: Lying in the way it is normally defined is an intentional act to deceive. I have deceived no one intentionally.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DID NOT LIE AND YOU WILL NOT MESS UP MY REPUTATION AS AN HONEST PERSON BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I'M LYING. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

You don't have a reputation as an honest person.

BTW, who did you pay to write that fake Amazon review?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have a reputation as an honest person.

BTW, who did you pay to write that fake Amazon review?

You have an agenda just like the rest. Don't talk to me Spacemonkey.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shut up LadyShea. I am tired of your insinuations. I am not using Twitter as a means of marketing, period.

So, to be clear, you at some point hired a marketing service to tweet on your behalf, and they are demonstrably still doing so. Nevertheless, you are "not using Twitter as a means or marketing, period". The marketing tweets being sent from your account by the service you arranged don't count because...uhhh...help me out here? Because you forgot about them?

This is why people view you as a weasel and a liar. How hard would it have been to just say "Oops, I forgot about the service I hired. I guess they're still marketing for me." instead of holding the line on the ridiculous fiction that you're not marketing via Twitter when everyone can see the daily marketing tweets being sent form your account?

[peacegirl]

DUPE

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

So, to be clear, you at some point hired a marketing service to tweet on your behalf, and they are demonstrably still doing so. Nevertheless, you are "not using Twitter as a means or marketing, period". The marketing tweets being sent from your account by the service you arranged don't count because...uhhh...help me out here? Because you forgot about them?

This is why people view you as a weasel and a liar. How hard would it have been to just say "Oops, I forgot about the service I hired. I guess they're still marketing for me." instead of holding the line on the ridiculous fiction that you're not marketing via Twitter when everyone can see the daily marketing tweets being sent form your account?

Adam, I am not actively involved in twitter. I wasn't even thinking about the tweets that may still be automated. You are just like the rest, looking for something to nitpick. Do you actually think what people are saying is a fair portrayal of who I am, let alone who my father was? You and others are doing this all because of his claim regarding the eyes. Amazing how fast this thread has gone downhill. What did it take, three days? Does anyone have a legitimate question before I go on hiatus?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh hey, look! You have a 5 star Amazon review from Todd P. Brandes. He says the book changed his life! This is his only review on Amazon and is very lacking in details. Looks like the epitome of a fake. Did you pay him too?

Mr. Brandes is her son-in-law, so it was probably a favor rather than a standard cash-for-service transaction.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adam, I am not actively involved in twitter. I wasn't even thinking about the tweets that may still be automated. You are just like the rest, looking for something to nitpick. Do you actually think what people are saying is a fair portrayal of who I am, let alone who my father was? You and others are doing this all because of his claim regarding the eyes. Amazing how fast this thread has gone downhill. What did it take, three days? Do you or anyone else have a legitimate question before I go on hiatus?

It's just another example of your refusal to admit to any error, on your part or your father's, even in the face of blatantly obvious evidence that you are wrong. So, yes, I think that portrayals of you as a weasel and a liar are absolutely fair accounts of your behavior here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's just another example of your refusal to admit to any error, on your part or your father's, even in the face of blatantly obvious evidence that you are wrong. So, yes, I think that portrayals of you as a weasel and a liar are absolutely fair accounts of your behavior here.

Well you are wrong Adam. This entire portrayal of me and my father is wrong, completely wrong. I can see how someone's reputation could be damaged by manipulation and half truths. My behavior has been above board considering the name calling I have had to endure. I don't know if you've ever been in a similar situation, but it's a difficult position to be in. It's another form of bullying and I didn't come here for this. I'm just easy prey for those who have nothing better to do than to find someone to use as lulz. Unfortunately, because of my father's claim regarding the eyes (which I believe is correct), the joking at my expense continues...

[Adam]

So, simple yes or no question. Are you using Twitter to market the book?

[The Lone Ranger]

So you don't lie, eh?

How about when you spent pages insisting that our eyes see in "real time," but cameras don't. Then, when you discovered that you had mis-read the Holy Scripture, and that Lessans hadn't made that claim, you instantly switched to claiming that cameras see in "real time," too.

And then you lied about it. You insisted that you had never claimed that cameras see in "delayed time," even though you had just spent several pages claiming exactly that. Want to have your quotes re-posted for you?


Or how about when you claimed that if someone invented a functional bionic eye -- no qualifications, just a functional bionic eye -- this would disprove Lessans' claims about vision? Then, when it was pointed out that functional bionic eyes already exist, you insisted that you had never made any such claim. When your own quotes were re-posted, showing that you were lying, instead of doing the right thing and admitting your lies and promising to do better in the future, you instead tried to change the subject.

Again, want quotes?


There are plenty of other examples of you blatantly lying, by the way.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

And to purposely deceive. I do not do that.

So, you knowingly make false claims, but you're not doing so for the purpose of deception. That's a remarkable claim, even for you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, you knowingly make false claims, but you're not doing so for the purpose of deception. That's a remarkable claim, even for you.

So if I say something that is not true, and the other person knows that it is not true, and knows that I know it is not true, and I know that they know it's not true, and I know that they know that I know it's not true, then I'm not deceiving them, and it's OK.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There are plenty of other examples of you blatantly lying, by the way.

But everyone knew that what she was posting was not true, (see my above post) So it's OK. Except that apparently she thought it was true, so it's not OK. Except that everyone believes that she really knew, so it's . . . . . something?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

So, simple yes or no question. Are you using Twitter to market the book?

If you want to use the automated tweets as my marketing the book, then I guess I am. When these automated tweets stop, I am not renewing, although I may tweet something from time to time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to use the automated tweets as my marketing the book, then I guess I am. When these automated tweets stop, I am not renewing, although I may tweet something from time to time.

Yes, I "want to use" automated tweets from your account, sent by a marketing you service you hired, as evidence that you are marketing the book via Twitter. Thank you for finally answering the question honestly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, you knowingly make false claims, but you're not doing so for the purpose of deception. That's a remarkable claim, even for you.

What false claims do I knowingly make for the purpose of deception?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes, I "want to use" automated tweets from your account, sent by a marketing you service you hired, as evidence that you are marketing the book via Twitter. Thank you for finally answering the question honestly.

I have always answered honestly. I just forgot about the tweets still being posted, which I didn't even realize. I have not been actively on twitter for weeks and weeks. I also was honest when David asked me how the reviews are going on twitter. I said I am not going that route [after trying it]. That being said, I may go to twitter from time to time to post something or even to try it again at a later date. I am entitled to change my mind, which does not make me a liar. They throw around this word like it's nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you don't lie, eh?

How about when you spent pages insisting that our eyes see in "real time," but cameras don't. Then, when you discovered that you had mis-read the Holy Scripture, and that Lessans hadn't made that claim, you instantly switched to claiming that cameras see in "real time," too.

I was trying to figure out how the eyes could be efferent and cameras still get the same picture, that's all. Some of these questions I had never thought about before. That does not make me a liar.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And then you lied about it. You insisted that you had never claimed that cameras see in "delayed time," even though you had just spent several pages claiming exactly that. Want to have your quotes re-posted for you?

I was trying to reconcile the fact that cameras and our eyes get the same exact image, and how this can work with efferent sight. I was weaseling, that is true, because I hadn't figured it out myself. That does not make me a liar.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Or how about when you claimed that if someone invented a functional bionic eye -- no qualifications, just a functional bionic eye -- this would disprove Lessans' claims about vision? Then, when it was pointed out that functional bionic eyes already exist, you insisted that you had never made any such claim. When your own quotes were re-posted, showing that you were lying, instead of doing the right thing and admitting your lies and promising to do better in the future, you instead tried to change the subject.

Again, want quotes?

No, I don't need the quotes. I know I made a mistake when I said if someone can create a functional bionic eye, it would disprove his claim. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it really doesn't. Bionic eyes are just parts that replace what no longer functions. That does not do anything to prove how the eyes actually see and it certainly does not make me a liar just because I answered incorrectly.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There are plenty of other examples of you blatantly lying, by the way.

You are using the word wrong. I admit I weaseled because I hadn't figured out the answer since I had never thought about bionic eyes or cameras, and I didn't want you to give up on the claim prematurely. That did not make me a liar.

[The Lone Ranger]

There's a big difference between "weaseling" and denying that you had made claims that you had, indeed, made.

There is a word for "denying that you had made claims that you had, indeed, made." It is called lying.

[The Lone Ranger]

So this is not lying, according to you:

peacegirl: Cameras see in delayed time.
Everyone else: Obviously. That's easily demonstrated, as the camera cannot take a picture until the light reaches it.
peacegirl: (After re-examining the Holy Scripture): Cameras do not see in delayed time; they see in real time.
Everyone else: Wait. You just claimed that cameras see in delayed time.
peacegirl: No I didn't.
Everyone else: Yes you did. Here are several pages worth of quotes of you insisting just that.
peacegirl: I never said that cameras see in delayed time.

You know, I'd bet that if anyone else had done this, you wouldn't hesitate to call it what it is -- lying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So if I say something that is not true, and the other person knows that it is not true, and knows that I know it is not true, and I know that they know it's not true, and I know that they know that I know it's not true, then I'm not deceiving them, and it's OK.