A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

How many times are you going to repeat "I'm out!" without actually getting the fuck out

Stay or go, makes no difference to me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not even asking for verification at this point. It's just impossible for us to come together on any intellectual level and for that reason, I'M OUT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell? You play these trivial games, as if this back and forth banter has anything whatsoever to do with the reason I came here. I'M OUT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, I'm a liar. You won. I'M OUT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you being serious Spacemonkey? I'M OUT.

What do you mean you're 'out'? You're still here and posting. You're just refusing to address anything anyone is saying. If you think you can actually leave, then leave already.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'M OUT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'M OUT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'M OUT.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'M OUT.

Of course you are. You're off to get a job and at long last stop stealing public funds from people who actually need them, yes?

Or maybe you're just fulla shit. Yep, that's probably it.

[Artemis Entreri]

But wait, did she ever reveal the "true revolution in thought" that leads to an alteration of environmental conditions and makes war and crime impossible?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

But wait, did she ever reveal the "true revolution in thought" that leads to an alteration of environmental conditions and makes war and crime impossible?

Not in three and a half years of posting here, in addition to more than ten years posting at other forums.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

This example isn't analogous because of the opposite nature of this account. If there's no time involved (other than the speed that it takes for light to be at the eye when a candle is first lit), then we're not waiting for a particular photon to arrive, like a piece of mail with specific information in it. The photon doesn't bring with it any information that would make this photon any different than the next.

[Artemis Entreri]

Ok, Who had 4.5 hours in the "Dingbat leaving for good" pool?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You tell lies, that makes you a liar. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

I did ask a question, your answered with a lie. How am I misusing the word?

This is a lie because you recently said:

Because you don't see the difference between saying nonabsorbed photons don't get reflected and saying that light doesn't travel. Lessans said the one thing scientists are right about is that light travels at a high rate of speed. I said IF I HAD SAID THAT PHOTONS DON'T TRAVEL I RENIG THAT. BUT I NEVER SAID THAT LIGHT DOESN'T TRAVEL. I SAID THE IMAGE DOESN'T GET REFLECTED WHICH ONLY MEANS WE DON'T WAIT FOR THE INFORMATION IN THE LIGHT TO TRAVEL TO US. You don't have to constantly call me a liar to get your questions answered. If you wanted to be gracious about it you could say I think I see a contradiction and I would try to see where the problem was. To charge someone with lying is a serious charge and it's implying that you know my motivation. Lying is a purposeful desire to deceive. I have never done that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'M OUT

Well, I guess that was another lie!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one who mentioned what "others" believed, as if you had some kind of agreement with your ridiculous position. So obviously you "care" enough to have made the comment in the first place.

I don't need agreement. I made the comment because someone on a forum said that if the Sun was suddenly turned off the light that was emitted would still travel but if no more photons were coming from this light source, the light from this source would eventually stop, just like in the stream. That's all. It was an innocent comment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I am determined to highlight your dishonesty, at this point. This weaseling away from your obvious bullshit by attacking me is a good example of it.

Calling me dishonest and telling me I'm weaseling away from my obvious BULLSHIT makes me realize this is a lost cause in here. You really have a bad habit of making unfair accusations, but you will never own up to it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Calling me dishonest and telling me I'm weaseling away from my obvious BULLSHIT makes me realize this is a lost cause in here. You really have a bad habit of making unfair accusations, but you will never own up to it.

Hey, why don't you explain why you altered your father's "mathematically undeniable" assertion that in the "new world" it will be "mathematically impossible" for husbands and wives to desire to share the same bed, to say something completely different? And then, when I CORRECTLY quoted the text before you altered it to make Lessans seem less the fool, you called me a liar even though I had NOT lied; I quoted the original text before you CHANGED it. Got an explanation for those facts, liar?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't a clue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We register that the light has arrived when that light has gotten close enough to be within optical range of the telescope...

How close is that? At precisely what distance is optical range achieved? I have asked you this question before and you have not bothered to answer it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is even interested in why he came to his conclusions, and why they need to be taken seriously. Only a handful of people even read this chapter. You can't just handwave his observations away as if they mean nothing, because they mean something.

Why he came to his conclusions does not matter. How he came to his conclusion would be of interest if his conclusions had merit. They don't, so it doesn't. Those observations might be of some interest, if he had recorded them in a way that would allow others to check and replicate his work. He didn't do that, so they also don't matter or mean anything. So you are correct. No one is interested in "why" he came to his conclusions and those conclusions do not need to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're totally biased which makes you blind...

You accuse Spacemonkey of being blinded by bias, are not equally biased and therefore blind as well?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

BTW, how stupid are you? Or how stupid do you think we are? Don't you remember that several people have copies of the book from three years ago? So when you try to scrub the embarrassing stuff (well, it's ALL embarrassing, but still), the way Stalin used to have people who fell out of favor airbrushed out of official historical photographs, your effort will meet a big FAIL, and you will end up with what Maturin showed above: the actual original text, and your desperate efforts to doctor it to make your father appear less of an infantile, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing goober.

What are you david, some kind of Lessantonian originalist? Don't you know that Lessans' book is a living, breathing document?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't change the subject. Why were you criticizing LadyShea for not admitting she was wrong when you haven't shown her to be wrong?

Whatever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it has traveled there. No one is saying that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It hasn't had time to travel there. To travel there would take 8min, and you need it there instantly, remember?

No Spacemonkey, I don't need it to travel 8 minutes. That individual photon does not bring with it any information whatsoever, so I'm not waiting for it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet it is. So you are wrong.

No I'm not wrong at all. Your saying I'm wrong makes me wonder what you understand.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are wrong. You just said the laser flash is not large enough to be picked up by the telescope, yet that is exactly what happens.

Right, only when it gets close enough to be picked up by the telescope which is 2.6 seconds later.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never denied things I've said. I am telling you that you are misconstruing what I said.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've routinely been caught flat out lying about what you have previously said. When caught you just weasel further by trying to claim you didn't really mean what you said.

Because this is a difficult concept to understand and it sometimes sounds contradictory, especially when I say that light travels and yet I also say that it doesn't travel with the wavelength that brings an image of a physical event or object through space/time that can be decoded.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been pressed over and over and I still don't agree with you. I will not concede...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You already have conceded this point, several times in fact. When shown that there is nothing else the non-absorbed photons can do but be reflected you always retract your claim and concede that they do get reflected.

But there is an answer to that, and that is the closed system that this account brings. This does not require the time you think it takes to see the object. The object within the closed system is in proportion to the viewer, which causes the light to be at the eye as quickly as it would take to see a candle lighted. I know you don't see how this can happen but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what he meant. What you mean is moot.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How could it be what Lessans meant? He never said anything about photons or reflection. This is purely shit YOU have made up. And it is wrong. You are wrong about what it means to say photons are not reflected.

He said images are not reflected.

p. 118 If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the
distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the
naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the point that what light is comprised of DOES MATTER. Full spectrum light is not the same thing as nonabsorbed light, which photons use to reveal.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is denying the difference between full and partial spectrum light. The point is that ALL light travels through space/time, not just full spectrum light.

But if this light travels from the object to the eye as quickly as light does from a candle because of the nature of this account which forms a closed system, then we're not talking about time when it comes to sight. All other areas of physics where it takes a certain amount of time to get from one place to another, time does matter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's there Spacemonkey if the object or light source can be seen. You're having a problem with this, that's all. It doesn't mean it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask if it was there or not. I asked whether or not it traveled to get to where it now is. Once again you weasel and waver on this point, contrary to your above claim.

I will say this once again: In this account if the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen, the light is already at the eye. If the Sun was turned on, it would be seen just as quickly as we would see a candle being lighted.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can't argue with that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't argue with Hubble negating real-time vision? Good. So much for efferent vision then.

You know what I meant. Hubble Deep Field does not negate real time vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who cares?

What is true is most important, not what others say.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Anyone who cares about basic honesty will care. Why did you just make up that lie about 'others' saying something they are not?

Someone did say that or I wouldn't have thought about it when the subject came up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever light is out there, if the object or event is gone, this light will never bring any information through space/time that would allow us to see the distant past...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light ALWAYS arrives with measurable properties - such as direction, frequency, and intensity - from which time-delayed images can be formed.

True...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So your claim about information was false. Arriving light DOES bring information, even if the object or event is gone.

Why did you have a ... after I said true. What was the rest of the comment?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I'm trying to answer the questions with as much clarity as I can.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But that's a lie. You're not doing that at all. You are quite deliberately and openly refusing to answer questions.

I'm not agreeing with you so you say I don't have clarity...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Classic dishonest weasel move. I wasn't saying you weren't achieving clarity. That is a given. My point was that you are not even trying to answer questions at all. You are deliberately refusing to do so.

I'm answering your questions Spacemonkey. But you better watch how you talk to me. Today I said I'M OUT! I keep answering because I don't like being accused of things I'm not guilty of. But I don't like the conversation, it's getting us anywhere, and I want to move on.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your best at what? Honestly and directly answering all reasonable questions? Or dishonestly weaseling to protect your faith-based delusions from criticism?

I'm here aren't I, and I'm taking the brunt of a lot of criticism. So how can you say that I'm only here to protect my faith Spacemonkey? This is not at all about faith, but if you believe that's all it is, then by golly move on. I wouldn't blame you at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say that. I asked a question, and you have again failed to answer. When you claim to be doing 'your best', what do you mean? Are you doing your best to honestly and directly answer all reasonable questions? Or are you rather doing your best to dishonestly weasel to protect your faith-based delusions from criticism?

Some of your questions don't apply to this account. Some of your stories don't apply to this account. I answer the questions that I believe do apply to this account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What are you david, some kind of Lessantonian originalist? Don't you know that Lessans' book is a living, breathing document?

It actually is a living breathing document just like the Bible. It contains a vast amount of wisdom; wisdom that comes from God. BTW, as a compiler of this work I am entitled to add some of my own wording and to put it together in my own way. I took great care not to alter the concept. That's why this book doesn't have to be copyrighted because it doesn't differ from the original in any significant way.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually is a living breathing document just like the Bible. It contains a vast amount of wisdom; wisdom that comes from God. BTW, as a compiler of this work I am entitled to add some of my own wording and to put it together in my own way. I took great care not to alter the concept. That's why this book doesn't have to be copyrighted because it doesn't differ from the original in any significant way.

Lying again, we all see!

1. You cannot alter a "mathematically undeniable truth." Lessans stated that it was mathematically undeniable that husbands and wives would no longer desire to share a bed. You changed this to something completely different. This proves that even you don't believe that his rubbish was "mathematically undeniable."

2. The main point, though, is that I correctly quoted the original text, before you altered it, and you called me a liar for having correctly quoted the text! This proves that the only liar here is YOU.

[Artemis Entreri]

Oh lordy, I didn't realize this was a holy text of divine godly wisdom.
So does it matter if I have a hand-me-down King Seymour version or do I need to spring for the New International Dingbat Version?
All this changing of the holy word could eventually lead to some guy in a bathrobe and an aluminum foil hat nailing a letter of grievances on PG's door.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Today I said I'M OUT!

Four times, in fact, and in ALL CAPS each time. You went full retard, as they say. And, as always, you were fulla shit.

[davidm]

From the first page of this thread, in March 2011:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a religious work whatsoever.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Four times, in fact, and in ALL CAPS each time. You went full retard, as they say. And, as always, you were fulla shit.

Yeah, but that's OK, because it was a seriously disappointing drama-queen flounce-out. We need something much better from her, something to transcend that epic flounce-out of the lolbertard who wrote a long bitter screed concluding with FUCK YOU ALL in huge, bold letters. Someone needs to dig that up to show peacegirl how it should be done.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

So does it matter if I have a hand-me-down King Seymour version or do I need to spring for the New International Dingbat Version?

None of the translations is any good at all. You've gotta read it in the original Authentic Lessantonian Gibberish. It's easier than it sounds, though, because in ALG there are no grammar conventions and words mean whatever you goddamn jolly well want 'em to mean.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

New International Dingbat Version

Yes I think what we're discussing now is the New International Dingbat Version. In the King Seymour version, it was an undeniable mathematical truth of nature that husbands and wives would no longer share the same bed. Also, in King Seymour, light was made of "molecules" but in the Dingbat version it is made of photons. And, of course, in the original, light did not need to be in the retina, but now it does; unfortunately both versions agree that light takes time to get to the retina, but in the Dingbat version, that's OK, light is at the eye instantly even though it's not.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Someone needs to dig that up to show peacegirl how it should be done.

Good times. Sadly, peacegirl isn't even remotely capable of that sort of quality. FormerFundie2004's tirade was a Lamborghini Veneno. peacegirl is a Yugo with a leaky crankcase.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have offered supporting evidence of lies and lying, consisting of your own words, every single time I have called you a liar. I do not use the word lightly, let alone use it unjustly or misuse it.

Anyone can read your words and see that I am not being unjust.

You are misappropriating the word as I have told you all along.

lie1 [lahy] Show IPA
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie