A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Hmmm. In the authentic text, the sun being switched on at noon we can't see till 8 minutes later - which is different to what's been posted here before. But we can still see an exploding sun instantly and the aliens near Rigel can still see things happening on Earth right now.

He was referring to the light. We wouldn't see the light until 8 minutes later because the light hadn't gotten to Earth yet. But we would see the Sun explode instantly. This is exactly what he wrote in his other books.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was referring to the light. We wouldn't see the light until 8 minutes later because the light hadn't gotten to Earth yet. But we would see the Sun explode instantly. This is exactly what he wrote in his other books.

If light from the newly ignited Sun is already at the retina as soon the Sun is first ignited, when was this light at the Sun?

And if it is traveling light, what traveling has it done?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree. This thread has turned into a three ring circus.

Yes, that is what happens when you lie about what you have said.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was referring to the light. We wouldn't see the light until 8 minutes later because the light hadn't gotten to Earth yet. But we would see the Sun explode instantly. This is exactly what he wrote in his other books.

The Authentic Text:




The Corrupted Text:

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Davidm, you are a sleazy shithead down to the core.

Harrumph, Why does everyone else get all the good user titles?

[Vivisectus]

We're not talking about rape here. This is about pushing your own desire onto your spouse where they grudgingly agree. Usually they give in to prevent an argument.

And you assume this is universal. And a major cause of divorce and such. Also that universal monogamy is the best outcome. Because...?

These are preferences.

I'm sorry if you don't like that I say the problem won't exist, because it won't.

It is your standard handwave. Does your "principle" not deal with something? Simple state that it won't exist.

The silly book? That makes you silly. Please explain the three justifications. You gave two. Where's the other one?

That's only one. You said you read the book.

Are you a goldfish or something? I mentioned the lot. What has NOT happened is you explaining why we should assume it is the case.

- self preservation
- Retaliation
- When we expect blame

Then get your answers from everyone who knows about the book and is not me.

They are not the ones claiming this book is true. You are. And you are obviously unable to back that up.

Your lol's are not an answer because you have none.

It is as good as your one: a simple claim. Is not! They do not impress now do they?

Then go along with everybody else, and leave me out.

I see we are hitting the next phase: faced with the fact this is all just so much dogmatic nonsense, you retreat. You never remember the problems, you never deal with them - you just pretend it never happened and repeat the same claims.

His observations are so clear for anyone who follows his reasoning carefully, but they can also be tested. What bothers me are not your questions, but your absolute assuredness that he can't be right.

My absolute assuredness that you only believe it because you want to believe it, because the book just makes claims. It does not back anything up.

It's not just about eliminating blame without changing other aspects of the environment. This would be catastrophic but that was not what he was suggesting.

Not the point. The point is - why should we assume conscience works that way?

You never did have an answer to that. In fact it seems to come as a surprise that anyone should ask the question.

It's not only about the removal of blame. It's about changing the environment so that you are not being struck a first blow. Many people don't have the necessaries of life. Not blaming them would do no good if they are struggling to survive and have to hurt others to save themselves.

More evasion!

Beside the point. Why should we assume he was right about conscience?

It will not be your business to tell other people what to do. This will be part of the contract that you will be signing to become a citizen. If you don't want to become a citizen of the new world, you won't have to sign. You could not have read this book because you understand nothing.

And, when faced with questions you have no answer to, accusations, waffling, evasions... the usual. Soon you will drop the conversation entirely... only to return to it later, with the exact same story.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The Authentic Text is unambiguous: "molecules of light."

...

So it seems that Lessans thought that the light so to speak opens a channel between the light source and the eyes. This takes 8 minutes for the sun. But once the channel stands, the visual information transports instantaneously. That also explains why we see the sun explode immediately. This is a conceptually and logically consistent view. Peacegirl made it inconsistent, and I am sure she knows it, otherwise she would have answered Spacemonkey's questions.

Of course Lessans' view is wrong, because it contradicts everything we, scientifically proven, know about the physics of light, optics, and how the eyes really work.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The Authentic Text:




The Corrupted Text:

She's been arguing for the exact opposite for years

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

She's been arguing for the exact opposite for years

That was a very early version. When he said we wouldn't be able to see "it", he meant we wouldn't be able to see the light, which is true. He didn't say that we would see the Sun 8 minutes later if it were to explode. We would see it instantly. The concept was not changed although he made it more clear in his other books. I didn't change anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If light from the newly ignited Sun is already at the retina as soon the Sun is first ignited, when was this light at the Sun?

And if it is traveling light, what traveling has it done?

Just remember "mirror image". If that's not good enough for you, oh well.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember "mirror image". If that's not good enough for you, oh well.

Yes, we remember all the stupid nonsense you made up about your magical and imaginary 'mirror images'. That doesn't answer my questions though, does it? Dumbass.

If light from the newly ignited Sun is already at the retina as soon the Sun is first ignited, when was this light at the Sun?

And if it is traveling light, what traveling has it done?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, its clear that you can "see" what I'm trying to do since you really do only have half a brain!

So he took it out, hmm? Really? Did he also take out the "juicy cunts" bits? Which parts did he take out and which parts did you take out?

I did not take anything out that was essential to the concept. I can't even find the book where he actually used the words "juicy cunts". Maybe this was an original that he submitted to the Library of Congress but never printed it. The only book that was explicit in sexual content was View From the Mountain Top, but the version I have replaced "cunt" with a line that let the reader fill in.

Originally Posted by Davidm

Did he change "molecules of light" to "photons," or did you? We know you completely rewrote the part about married couples being mathematically certain not to desire to share a bed, because we have the original version and the later version which you rewrote, which says something completely different from what he wrote. You are such a dishonest harridan.

I did not change any of the concepts David. You can't accuse me of something I didn't do. Yes, I changed molecules to photons. Big fuckin deal. He was not a stickler for using the "right" word. What was more important to him was getting across the concept. You think that because he used the wrong word proves he couldn't have made an important observation regarding the eyes. This is your fallacious reasoning. Moreover, I did not change the concept about married couples. I took out "mathematically impossible" in that one sentence because it wasn't necessary. If you understood the principles at all, which you don't, you would have understood why he put that expression in. I took it out because of people like you who would argue that the expression "mathematically impossible" doesn't apply. None of the points you are arguing has anything to do with the validity and soundness of his discoveries. You're grasping at straws David, but keep it up. You're inadvertently helping my cause.

[Vivisectus]

That was a very early version. When he said we wouldn't be able to see "it", he meant we wouldn't be able to see the light, which is true. He didn't mean to say that we wait for light to arrive in order to see the Sun instantly. His other books were more clear and I didn't change anything.

The Messiah demonstrates very clearly that the reverse is true. Besides, it would not make sense: why can we see the sun instantly over large distances, but not light? Surely we can look out at it in the same way we look out at the sun?

But of light is merely a prerequisite for sight that needs to be at the eyes, then at least the story is internally consistent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The Messiah demonstrates very clearly that the reverse is true. Besides, it would not make sense: why can we see the sun instantly over large distances, but not light? Surely we can look out at it in the same way we look out at the sun?

But of light is merely a prerequisite for sight that needs to be at the eyes, then at least the story is internally consistent.

All of his other books said exactly what I wrote. Sorry!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was a very early version. When he said we wouldn't be able to see "it", he meant we wouldn't be able to see the light, which is true. He didn't say that we would see the Sun 8 minutes later if it were to explode. We would see it instantly. The concept was not changed although he made it more clear in his other books. I didn't change anything.

Oh, come on. He very clearly says that if the sun is turned on at noon, it takes 8 minutes before we see it. You said we see it immediately.

Only afterwards, sight is instantaneous. So if we see the sun shining, and it suddenly explodes, then we see the explosion instantaneous.

[Vivisectus]

All of his other books said exactly what I wrote. Sorry!

That is not what the text tells us, I am afraid. Looks like you are actually a bit of a heretic!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was referring to the light. We wouldn't see the light until 8 minutes later because the light hadn't gotten to Earth yet. But we would see the Sun explode instantly. This is exactly what he wrote in his other books.

Haven't you learned by now that this is exactly what traps you in a terrible logical contradiction? If the light hasn't gotten to the Earth yet, how can a camera - which only works because light strikes the CCD or film - record the explosion instantly?

So now cameras must either work differently to eyes, or light must have some magical property that allows it to influence the properties of a CCD or photographic film before it has arrived.

I'm sure you'll handwave all this away with some magical 'mirror image' nonsense as usual.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not take anything out that was essential to the concept.

Juicy cunts were essential to the concept. You have ruined his book. No wonder you can't sell any copies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Juicy cunts were essential to the concept. You have ruined his book. No wonder you can't sell any copies.

Thank you for helping to get this book out of obscurity into the light, even if this was never your aim. God works in mysterious ways.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not what the text tells us, I am afraid. Looks like you are actually a bit of a heretic!

You're wrong. Every single book says the same thing. You choose to make something out of nothing because YOU DON'T LIKE HIS CLAIM. It's as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Oh, come on. He very clearly says that if the sun is turned on at noon, it takes 8 minutes before we see it. You said we see it immediately.

Only afterwards, sight is instantaneous. So if we see the sun shining, and it suddenly explodes, then we see the explosion instantaneous.

Read his books. I will send them to you, but you will have to purchase them. They will be worth a lot one day.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for helping to get this book out of obscurity into the light, even if this was never your aim. God works in mysterious ways.

Thanks for ruining your father's book and then destroying your own credibility by lying and refusing to answer questions. Dumbass.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not take anything out that was essential to the concept. I can't even find the book where he actually used the words "juicy cunts". Maybe this was an original that he submitted to the Library of Congress but never printed it.

peacegirl, what are you even talking about? This is the printed, hardback book. I am holding it in my hands. The Library of Congress? What?

peacegirl, if you would like to buy a copy of the Authentic Text, I will sell you one.

The only book that was explicit in sexual content was View From the Mountain Top, but the version I have replaced "cunt" with a line that let the reader fill in.

You corrupted the text.

I did not change any of the concepts David. You can't accuse me of something I didn't do. Yes, I changed molecules to photons. Big fuckin deal. He was not a stickler for using the "right" word. What was more important to him was getting across the concept. You think that because he used the wrong word proves he couldn't have made an important observation regarding the eyes. This is your fallacious reasoning. Moreover, I did not change the concept about married couples. I took out "mathematically impossible" in that one sentence because it wasn't necessary. If you understood the principles at all, which you don't, you would have understood why he put that expression in. I took it out because of people like you who would argue that the expression "mathematically impossible" doesn't apply. None of the points you are arguing has anything to do with the validity and soundness of his discoveries. You're grasping at straws David, but keep it up. You're inadvertently helping my cause.

You corrupted the Authentic Text.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Read his books. I will send them to you, but you will have to purchase them. They will be worth a lot one day.

GdB, do not purchase the Corrupted Text. There is but one authentic text, and that is the Authentic Text written by the author and published in his lifetime. Texts that are not the Authentic Text are corrupt, like the Corrupted Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, what are you even talking about? This is the printed, hardback book. I am holding it in my hands. The Library of Congress? What?

So what is the title of the book?

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, if you would like to buy a copy of the Authentic Text, I will sell you one.

Not necessary. I have them all.

The only book that was explicit in sexual content was View From the Mountain Top, but the version I have replaced "cunt" with a line that let the reader fill in.

Originally Posted by Chuck

You corrupted the text.

No Chuck, there is no corruption whatsoever. You would never win a case against me in a court of law.

I did not change any of the concepts David. You can't accuse me of something I didn't do. Yes, I changed molecules to photons. Big fuckin deal. He was not a stickler for using the "right" word. What was more important to him was getting across the concept. You think that because he used the wrong word proves he couldn't have made an important observation regarding the eyes. This is your fallacious reasoning. Moreover, I did not change the concept about married couples. I took out "mathematically impossible" in that one sentence because it wasn't necessary. If you understood the principles at all, which you don't, you would have understood why he put that expression in. I took it out because of people like you who would argue that the expression "mathematically impossible" doesn't apply. None of the points you are arguing has anything to do with the validity and soundness of his discoveries. You're grasping at straws David, but keep it up. You're inadvertently helping my cause.

Originally Posted by Chuck

You corrupted the Authentic Text.

I corrupted nothing. I only added examples that enhanced understanding, and took out a few words that I knew could be a problem. That has nothing to do with the original concepts. You won't win Chuck.