A revolution in thought

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't win Vivisectus because I was his daughter and none of my compilation reflects EXACTLY what he meant to convey.

peacegirl, you spelled Corruption wrong, but I agree that none of your Corruptions reflects exactly what the Authentic Text intended to convey. Just look at how much you've outright deleted and suppressed from the Authentic Text. The fact that you claim to be the Author's daughter only lends a more tragic character to your Corruptions in service of Mammon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, you spelled Corruption wrong, but I agree that none of your Corruptions reflects exactly what the Authentic Text intended to convey. Just look at how much you've outright deleted and suppressed from the Authentic Text. The fact that you claim to be the Author's daughter only lends a more tragic character to your Corruptions in service of Mammon.

You're not going to win Chuck! Your attacks against me are weak, very very weak.

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, my #TrueStewardship isn't about "winning" - this is something that you've imagined. Maybe you perceive it that way because you are worried that you may not be able to sell as many $41.00 Corrupted Texts.

#TrueStewardship quite simply means that we reject your Corrupted Text because we interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we do so without blame from you. I understand that as a Corruptor who hawks her Corrupted Text for lucre, you may be reluctant to look behind the door marked ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text, but that does not make my #TrueStewardship any less mathematical and undeniable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, my #TrueStewardship isn't about "winning" - this is something that you've imagined. Maybe you perceive it that way because you are worried that you may not be able to sell as many $41.00 Corrupted Texts.

#TrueStewardship quite simply means that we reject your Corrupted Text because we interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we do so without blame from you. I understand that as a Corruptor who hawks her Corrupted Text for lucre, you may be reluctant to look behind the door marked ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text, but that does not make my #TrueStewardship any less mathematical and undeniable.

Chuck, can't you come up with something better?

Chuck, what's wrong, are you losing your touch?

Chuck, are you afraid of your impotence in conveying your message?

Chuck, it's okay if you lose this debate. Take heart!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Chuck, are you afraid of your impotence in conveying your message?

peacegirl, the message belongs to the Authentic Text, not to me! As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I recognize this.

Chuck, it's okay if you lose this debate. Take heart!

peacegirl, there is no debate; just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8, I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. You will find that 97% of people recognize my as the True Steward of the Authentic Text. peacegirl, there is no reason for you to imagine some adversarial combat, where the reality of my True Stewardship of the Authentic Text is mathematical and undeniable, as astutely observed by 97% of people.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

More fabrication thanks to Vivisectus! You can't win Vivisectus because I was his daughter and none of my compilation reflects EXACTLY what he meant to convey. Your arguing over corrupt versus authentic is a lost cause.

I am glad you agree none of your compilation reflects exactly what he meant to convey. They reflect your opinion on what he meant to convey, something you fail to adequately point out in your book.

You are not a genius who can astutely observe relations that reveal a plan from God (not god) that was never discovered until recently. You don't even agree with some of the things he says in the Authentic version. And yet, like a doctor pretending he knows for sure what is right for a patient, you pretend that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your heavily redacted "compilation" reflects what he thought.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am glad you agree none of your compilation reflects exactly what he meant to convey. They reflect your opinion on what he meant to convey, something you fail to adequately point out in your book.

You are not a genius who can astutely observe relations that reveal a plan from God (not god) that was never discovered until recently. You don't even agree with some of the things he says in the Authentic version. And yet, like a doctor pretending he knows for sure what is right for a patient, you pretend that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your heavily redacted "compilation" reflects what he thought.

I know what he said and I know what he meant. I was his daughter and I listened very carefully. My examples did not change the core principles. I know you want me to be wrong, but I'm not wrong. You just don't like the fact that I said vaccinations will never be mandatory in the new world. And you don't like the right of way system probably because you would have to admit things that may be counter-productive in your own life.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

We know it by your lies here, of course, but also all of your Corruptions - your lies that pack the Corrupted Text that you hawk online for lucre.

In more exciting news, we are edging ever closer to the page 2000 party!

Let's not forget there are three parties, dear -- and the Party Like It's 1999 bash is now just two pages away!

I believe that's the one restricted, among homo-sexuals, to I-homos only, but Flo will have to double check her record keeping on this.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was his daughter and I listened very carefully. My examples did not change the core principles.

Of course they did, peacegirl - you Corrupted the Authentic Text, as so many have now observed, which is a form of posthumous blame. That is why your Corrupted Text is mathematically and undeniably Corrupt. There is but one Authentic Text, and that is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. Your Corrupted Text is Corrupt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Let's not forget there are three parties, dear -- and the Party Like It's 1999 bash is now just two pages away!

I believe that's the one restricted, among homo-sexuals, to I-homos only, but Flo will have to double check her record keeping on this.

Taking your mockery to such an extreme just because you hate his claim regarding the eyes, is noted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Of course they did, peacegirl - you Corrupted the Authentic Text, as so many have now observed, which is a form of posthumous blame. That is why your Corrupted Text is mathematically and undeniably Corrupt. There is but one Authentic Text, and that is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. Your Corrupted Text is Corrupt.

Your confusion regarding blame is quite obvious to anyone who has even done a cursory reading.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your confusion regarding blame is quite obvious to anyone who has even done a cursory reading.

peacegirl, no reading of your Corrupted Text interests because your Corrupted Text is Corrupt and therefore rejected. We interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you.

#TrueStewardship

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, no reading of your Corrupted Text interests because your Corrupted Text is Corrupt and therefore rejected. We interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you.

#TrueStewardship

.

Chucky, repeating yourself over and over does nothing to help your claim of true stewardship.

#FalseStewardship

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Chucky, repeating yourself over and over does nothing to help your claim of true stewardship.

peacegirl, there is no "claim" in want of "help"; as is recognized in the poll that you suggested I take I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8. You will find this astute observation to be mathematical and undeniable; no "help" is needed, as I am compelled to be the True Steward of the Authentic Text of my own free will.

peacegirl, I understand if you have difficulty understanding this mathematical relation, as your struggles to comprehend the Authentic Text are well documented here and in your Corrupted Text. You have that right of way.

[ChuckF]

Who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text?

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text?

Peacegirl, I'm afraid you can't argue with that nice Mr. Google. The issue of #TrueStewardship is settled, and all your gum flapping won't make a jot or tittle of difference, dear.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The true meaning of love is respect.

"[S]exual satisfaction is the true meaning of love."

~ The Authentic Text, which Seymour Lessans wrote and published during his lifetime, of which ChuckF is the one and only True Steward

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't win Vivisectus because I was his daughter and none of my compilation reflects EXACTLY what he meant to convey.

Quoted for the accidental truth-telling. It is true that none of your Corrupted Text reflects exactly what Seymour Lessans meant. Indeed, vast swaths of the Corrupted Text are but nonsense babble that you made up from whole cloth, nonsense babble that doesn't even get within hollering distance of what Seymour Lessans meant to convey.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I really don't see anything like that in the Authentic version.

You don't see anything like that in the Authentic Text because it isn't there. peacegirl's post is nonsense babble that she made up from whole cloth. We know from prior interactions in this very thread that the only possible explanation of peacegirl's perversions are lack of understanding and/or resentment of Seymour Lessans (NOTE: those explanations are not mutually exclusive).

[Stephen Maturin]

"Seymour Lessans is right about seeing in real time. We just conspire to make it seem as if he's wrong, because we resent him."

~ The Planet Jupiter (Feb. 11, 2014)

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Something that occurs to me, in the "Golden Age" would parents be inhibited from having children? I have heard many say that bringing children into this world is very hurtful, so not having children would be the path of greater satisfaction and no blame.

This is an interesting question, doc. The Corrupted Text answers it by saying that in the Golden Age scientists will get together and determine what would qualify as overpopulation. Regular folks won't procreate to the point that population exceeds the agreed-upon number, because their conscience won't allow it.

The Golden Age will be a truly magical time. Today, scientists are so dumb and/or dishonest that they can't even be trusted to construct unbiased experiments regarding canine vision. In the Golden Age, scientists will decide how many children we ought to have, and everyone will follow their recommendations!

I don't know what the Authentic Text has to say about this issue.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The Golden Age will be a truly magical time. Today, scientists are so dumb and/or dishonest that they can't even be trusted to construct unbiased experiments regarding canine vision. In the Golden Age, scientists will decide how many children we ought to have, and everyone will follow their recommendations.

Yes, dear, but let's not forget, in the Golden Age they will be Citizen Scientists. That will make all the difference.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

This is an interesting question, doc. The Corrupted Text answers it by saying that in the Golden Age scientists will get together and determine what would qualify as overpopulation. Regular folks won't procreate to the point that population exceeds the agreed-upon number, because their conscience won't allow it.



The Golden Age will be a truly magical time. Today, scientists are so dumb and/or dishonest that they can't even be trusted to construct unbiased experiments regarding canine vision. In the Golden Age, scientists will decide how many children we ought to have, and everyone will follow their recommendations!



I don't know what the Authentic Text has to say about this issue.

I will address this question on slightly different grounds shortly. I am currently in hour 10 of a 2 day CLE...

[Stephen Maturin]

March 2014:

Using stolen public funds, peacegirl buys a review of the Corrupted Text. It does not go well.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

This is an interesting question, doc. The Corrupted Text answers it by saying that in the Golden Age scientists will get together and determine what would qualify as overpopulation. Regular folks won't procreate to the point that population exceeds the agreed-upon number, because their conscience won't allow it.

The Golden Age will be a truly magical time. Today, scientists are so dumb and/or dishonest that they can't even be trusted to construct unbiased experiments regarding canine vision. In the Golden Age, scientists will decide how many children we ought to have, and everyone will follow their recommendations!

I don't know what the Authentic Text has to say about this issue.

I will answer your inquiry in connection with the Authentic Text in undeniable, mathematical fashion as True Steward of the Authentic Text.

The bearing of children is generally, and with a few exceptions which I will discuss below, incompatible with the coming of the Golden Age. It has less to do with hurt to the putative child, and more to do with the blame between father and mother.

In order to understand this relation, let us refresh our understanding of the basic mathematical relations on the basis of the Authentic Text:

1. Marriage is sexual relation and sexual relation is marriage. "There is no difference":



2. In order to solve the problem or marriage, "a perfectly balanced equation of sexual desire must prevail at all time." "When a boy and girl...consummate their feelings with a complete sexual relation that results in an orgasm, they are going to fall desperately in love and desire each other all the more..."



3. Individuals who have a sexual relation are married. "...and, at the very moment they indulge, with or without contraception, they sincerely pledge their love and are married, until death do they part." (emphasis added)



4. Marriage depends on the satisfaction of sexual passion, and it is impossible for one party to take any action that would refuse or decrease the availability of sex to the other party. "...a husband and wife realize from the very beginning that the security of their extreme happiness depends on arousing and satisfying the sexual passion of the other, without imposing one ounce of obligation because this is advance blame, they are given no choice as to what is better since any word or action that decreases the desire to have a passionate relation only reveals a lack of love by tacitly blaming the sexual desire of the other."



5. Married couples (who have fall in love with each other's sexual organs) are "compelled to retain the same figure" and "have to keep themselves 'fit as a fiddle and ready for love.'"



Therefore, women who become pregnant shall be compelled, of their own free will, to abort the fetus in the event that such pregnancy shall cause their figure to be altered, or otherwise affect their ability to be available at all times for sex with their partner. Additionally, this may diminish the ability to arouse and satisfy the sexual passion of the other, which is the basis of marital security. As we have learned, this "only reveals a lack of love by tacitly blaming the sexual desire of the other." Additionally, bearing a child may seek to impose obligations on the child's father, which is incompatible with marriage.

It is possible, yet unlikely, that women of more generous proportion, whose figures will not be affected by bearing a pregnancy to term, may be compelled to have the child. However, the physiological consequences that typically accompany having a child may render the woman unavailable for sex at some moment(s), and therefore not "fit as a fiddle and ready for love." This failure to maintain readiness for a sexual relation at all times is, of course, a form of blame, as noted above.

The vast majority of pregnancies must therefore be terminated in order to preserve the security of the blameless marriages of those who have fallen in love with each others' sexual organs. To do otherwise would be a form of blame that is as incompatible with the Golden Age as kissing for reasons other than as a sexual preliminary, or shaking hands.

[Stephen Maturin]

show spoiler

And so does yet another vile corruption bite the proverbial dust. Never before have I seen the No Boohogs Corollary explicated so completely and accessibly. The explication was mathematical, scientific and undeniable, and presented in a manner than brooks no opposition.

I see why peacegirl is so hysterically jealous over your True Stewardship of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy, but make no mistake - you are indeed the True Steward.