A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Same here, specious. A brainless hack is making Lessans look like a gibbering idiot, and he's not even here to defend himself.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to justify anything to myself because I am not a perpetrator. You still don't get it.

Fascinating. So, you shoe-horn in a personal pet cause, which proclaims stuff that scientists almost universally reject and deride. Something that any panel of scientists (not political scientists) are going to associate with the author, because you never pointed out he never wrote one word about it. At best, this is risky: a risk you take changing a book that you feel is the vehicle for universal salvation of mankind. There is no way for you to say with 100% certainty that this will not hamper the progress of this knowledge.

And yet you feel you have nothing to justify: the expectation of blame has not changed your decision making process in any way.

How odd! Actions where the outcome could mean a hurt (and a universal one in this case: every person in the world, and every generation to follow is affected) and where you really do not have enough information to predict future outcomes with 100% certainty can somehow be taken, either because of ignorance, or because of a difference of opinion about what a hurt is, without the expectation of blame even coming up.

After all, you feel you have nothing to justify.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I almost feel bad for Lessans - all the times I derided his book for structural problems that were probably introduced by peacegirl.

There are no structural problems.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fascinating. So, you shoe-horn in a personal pet cause, which proclaims stuff that scientists almost universally reject and deride. Something that any panel of scientists (not political scientists) are going to associate with the author, because you never pointed out he never wrote one word about it. At best, this is risky: a risk you take changing a book that you feel is the vehicle for universal salvation of mankind. There is no way for you to say with 100% certainty that this will not hamper the progress of this knowledge.

And yet you feel you have nothing to justify: the expectation of blame has not changed your decision making process in any way.

If people are that close minded, they probably wouldn't read this type of book anyway. I put this in because there is another side, and there are some children who will be damaged or even die from vaccinations. All I said is that mandatory vaccination will not be enforced. That is the truth and I'm not afraid of the truth. It was just a half a page. If people will use this against me, I repeat: they don't have to read the book. Below is what was mentioned regarding vaccines. Believe me, this would not turn someone off who is looking at this book as a whole.

Recently, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has begun advocating ‘firing’ parents who don’t conform to
the CDC’s overloaded vaccine schedule, the schedule with 36 vaccines
on it, almost double the average of 30 other first world countries. The
schedule that has never been tested for combination risk. There has
been a growing public and professional concern over the immediate
and long term effects of these multiple vaccines (several shots given
simultaneously), as well as the toxic ingredients used to produce them,
but the pediatrician will tell the mother that it’s for the baby’s well-
being by reassuring her that the benefits far outweigh the risks. He
may explain that without these immunizations the baby is not
protected and the disease that once killed so many could easily come
back. Because she wants to do what is best for her child, she complies.
In some cases, however, a child could have a severe reaction and be
injured by the vaccination that was intended to help him. An
increasing number of physicians claim that the risks do not outweigh
the benefits. The following quotations are from doctors and
researchers who believe there is a possible link between vaccinations
and the chronic childhood illnesses that are so common today.

“Vaccine adverse effects are amply documented and are far more
significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious diseases.
Immunizations not only did not prevent any infectious diseases, they
caused more suffering and more deaths than has any other human
activity in the entire history of medical intervention. It will be decades
before the mopping-up after the disasters caused by childhood vaccination
will be completed.” — Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D

“Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of
childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction
(say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or
uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for
universal vaccination.” — Association of American Physicians &
Surgeons

“Instead of epidemics of measles and polio, we have epidemics of chronic
autoimmune and neurological disease: In the last 20 years rates of
asthma and attention-deficit disorder have doubled, diabetes and learning
disabilities have tripled, chronic arthritis now affects nearly one in five
Americans and autism has increased by 300 percent or more in many
states.” — Barbara Low Fisher

“Doctors maintain that the (MMR) inoculation is necessary to prevent
measles encephalitis, which they say occurs about once in 1,000 cases.
After decades of experience with measles, I question this statistic, and so
do many other pediatricians. The incidence of 1/1000 may be accurate
for children who live in conditions of poverty and malnutrition, but in the
middle-and upper–income brackets, if one excludes simple sleepiness from
the measles itself, the incidence of true encephalitis is probably more like
1/10,000 or 1/100,000. Furthermore, about 75 percent of these cases
will not show evidence of brain damage.” — Dr. Mendelsohn

“Most parents today find it quite difficult to understand why they have to
have their child vaccinated against this particular disease (measles) when
their mothers used to organize measles parties to ensure all the children of
the family had it! In fact a mild dose of measles stimulates the immature
immune system, in the correct sequence, to develop naturally, thereby
strengthening the child generally.” — Christina J Head MCHRs. Hon

“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment
of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many
histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were
vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never
seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have.
They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly
well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” — Dr.
William Howard Hay

“Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain,
cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical
journals. In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used to induce
encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals, which is characterized by brain
swelling and hemorrhaging.” — Harold E. Buttram, M.D. & F. Edward
Yazbak, M.D.

“The number of vaccination deaths overwhelms disease (pertussis) deaths:
32 in a three year period according to the CDC (1991-94), and only 8
in 1993, the last peak incidence year...Simply put, the vaccine may be
more than 100 times more deadly than the disease.” — Alan Philips,
J.D., Attorney and Counselor at Law (this doesn’t take into account the
SIDS-DPT connection).

“Probably 20% of American children — one youngster in five — suffers
from “development disability.” This is a stupefying figure...the primary
cause of encephalitis — is the childhood vaccination program. To be
specific, a large proportion of the millions of U.S. children and adults
suffering from autism, seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity,
dyslexia, and other shoots or branches of the hydraheaded entity called
“development disabilities,” owe their disorders to one or another of the
vaccines against childhood diseases.” — Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.

NVICP has paid out for 50 deaths per year: The U.S. Federal
Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP)
has paid out over 724.4 million dollars to parents of vaccine injured and
killed children, in taxpayer dollars. The NVICP has received over 5000
petitions since 1988, including over 700 for vaccine-related deaths, and
there are still 2800 total death and injury cases pending that may take
years to resolve (NVICP, Health Resources and Services Administration).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How odd! Actions where the outcome could mean a hurt (and a universal one in this case: every person in the world, and every generation to follow is affected) and where you really do not have enough information to predict future outcomes with 100% certainty can somehow be taken, either because of ignorance, or because of a difference of opinion about what a hurt is, without the expectation of blame even coming up.

After all, you feel you have nothing to justify.

There would be nothing for me to justify because I wouldn't be giving out advice that could backfire. You don't have enough information to know which children will be hurt Vivisectus. How would you feel if you, as a doctor, told a parent they must get their child vaccinated, and they died as a result? Today it is justified by the doctor convincing himself that there is no link between vaccines and a bad reaction (or a very small risk at best) even though the inserts tell a different story. Even today, just the thought that vaccines could be responsible for hurting, not helping, one's patients would be hard to accept. But in the new world the weight of this responsibility would be even greater. How could you justify giving such bad advice when nobody, not even the parents, would ever hold you responsible? Would you justify it by saying that a few sacrifices for the herd was worth it? The death of this child would be on your conscience, and you'd have to live with this feeling of remorse for the rest of your days. I guarantee you, no doctor would ever want to be in this position. The only way to prevent that possibility is not giving out advice that you're not sure about, but rather give both sides without persuasion and let the parent choose.

[Vivisectus]

There would be nothing for me to justify because I wouldn't be giving out advice that could backfire

No, you merely changed a book supposed to save the world... which is an action that could backfire.

You don't have enough information to know that such an insertion won't make panels of scientists (not political scientists) consider the book as unscientific as your anti-vaccination views. How would you feel if you, as a wannabe steward, made an amazing discovery that can save mankind seem unscientific, and crimes would continue to happen as a result? How could you justify such an action when nobody, even the people who will continue to be poor, crime-ridden and killed by violence as a result will blame you? Would you justify it by saying that whomever this turns off the book is simply close minded? You would not be able to in a world with no blame from anyone. The deaths of millions would be on your conscience and you would have to live with it.

But wait: you never expected to be blamed for shoe-horning anti-vaxx rhetoric into the book. Because you thought it was fine and dandy - a good thing even.

Weird, that!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no structural problems.

All problems with the book are caused by people not understanding the book, probably because they are biased. This is true even if Peacegirl herself has no answer to the criticism. For instance: no-where in Peacegirls version is there any evidence that conscience works as her book describes. There is the statement THAT it works like that, and even the promise that it will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but then the book happily meanders on without ever getting around to mentioning what the proof actually is.

Peacegirl herself cannot find the promised evidence in the book. Nevertheless, no structural problems.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people are that close minded, they probably wouldn't read this type of book anyway. I put this in because there is another side, and there are some children who will be damaged or even die from vaccinations. All I said is that mandatory vaccination will not be enforced. That is the truth and I'm not afraid of the truth. It was just a half a page. If people will use this against me, I repeat: they don't have to read the book. Below is what was mentioned regarding vaccines.

peacegirl, your extensive Corruptions are well known here. No one is interested your repeated recitation of your distortions and mutilations in your Corrupted Text. We reject your Corrupted Text. We will interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author in his lifetime, and we will do so without blame from you.

Believe me, this would not turn someone off who is looking at this book as a whole.

peacegirl, here you put the cart before the horse by assuming that the reader who has already shelled out $41.00 for your Corrupted Text will simply overlook your Corruptions, because they have already purchased your Corrupted Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you merely changed a book supposed to save the world... which is an action that could backfire.

You don't have enough information to know that such an insertion won't make panels of scientists (not political scientists) consider the book as unscientific as your anti-vaccination views. How would you feel if you, as a wannabe steward, made an amazing discovery that can save mankind seem unscientific, and crimes would continue to happen as a result? How could you justify such an action when nobody, even the people who will continue to be poor, crime-ridden and killed by violence as a result will blame you? Would you justify it by saying that whomever this turns off the book is simply close minded? You would not be able to in a world with no blame from anyone. The deaths of millions would be on your conscience and you would have to live with it.

But wait: you never expected to be blamed for shoe-horning anti-vaxx rhetoric into the book. Because you thought it was fine and dandy - a good thing even.

Weird, that!

WTF!

[Spacemonkey]

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WTF!

Quelle repartie!

[Stephen Maturin]

It's simple, really. peacegirl resents Seymour Lessans for challenging her comfy, cozy worldview. Being in a position to do so, she acted on her resentment by machete-butchering the Authentic Text into an unreadable pile of gibbering nonsense nonsense babble and fraudulently adding anti-vax drivel, all to make the author look like a bed-wetting moron.

Shame on you, peacegirl.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It's simple, really. peacegirl resents Seymour Lessans for challenging her comfy, cozy worldview. Being in a position to do so, she acted on her resentment by machete-butchering the Authentic Text into an unreadable pile of gibbering nonsense nonsense babble and fraudulently adding anti-vax drivel, all to make the author look like a bed-wetting moron.

Shame on you, peacegirl.

As True Steward of the Authentic Text, I substantially concur. I do not blame peacegirl for her $41.00 Corrupted Text replete with self-serving Corruptions, though they are a hurt to the Authentic Text.

It does compel us of our own free will to consider the source when peacegirl begins sentences with things like this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me

How can any reader trust peacegirl when there is a conflict of interest in many cases?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

As True Steward of the Authentic Text, I substantially concur. I do not blame peacegirl for her $41.00 Corrupted Text replete with self-serving Corruptions, though they are a hurt to the Authentic Text.

It does compel us of our own free will to consider the source when peacegirl begins sentences with things like this:

How can any reader trust peacegirl when there is a conflict of interest in many cases?

Is this your proof that I am wrong?

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It's simple, really. peacegirl resents Seymour Lessans for challenging her comfy, cozy worldview. Being in a position to do so, she acted on her resentment by machete-butchering the Authentic Text into an unreadable pile of gibbering nonsense nonsense babble and fraudulently adding anti-vax drivel, all to make the author look like a bed-wetting moron.

Shame on you, peacegirl.

No Maturin, this is your overactive revenge filled fantasies in motion. Researchers studying this thread (once this discovery is confirmed valid) will see what lengths people went through to discredit Lessans and his daughter. This will be an eye opening experience for psychologists, but not for the reasons you imagined.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl, why are you always parroting ChuckF? I'm sure the guests can see what's really going on here.

Peacegirl has been parroting someone else all her life. First she parrots what her father wrote and her corruptions, and then she parrots anyone who is critical of the book. Peacegirl hasn't had an original thought since she was old enough to think.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is this your proof that I am wrong?

peacegirl, what are you even talking about? Your Corrupted Text does not interest. We reject your $41.00 Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have shown this to be mathematically and undeniably true in a manner that brooks no opposition. The Corruptions themselves prove your Corrupted Text to be Corrupt. Your Corrupted Text is rejected.

We will interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, what are you even talking about? Your Corrupted Text does not interest. We reject your $41.00 Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have shown this to be mathematically and undeniably true in a manner that brooks no opposition. The Corruptions themselves prove your Corrupted Text to be Corrupt. Your Corrupted Text is rejected.

We will interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you.

I will blame you because you're an imposter!

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will blame you

We know, peacegirl; you blame me for the undeniable, mathematical reality that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text (compelled of my own free will and by my nature, just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8), and thereby reject that magic elixir (call it what you will - corollary, slide rule, or basic principle) extended to mankind by the Authentic Text, and thereby decline to transmute the baser metals of your blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age.



You have that right of way, peacegirl; but it is a hurt to the Authentic Text.

All of this you do to hawk your Corrupted Text. Your blame infests this thread like a virus, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

We know, peacegirl; you blame me for the undeniable, mathematical reality that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text (compelled of my own free will and by my nature, just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8), and thereby reject that magic elixir (call it what you will - corollary, slide rule, or basic principle) extended to mankind by the Authentic Text, and thereby decline to transmute the baser metals of your blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age.



You have that right of way, peacegirl; but it is a hurt to the Authentic Text.

All of this you do to hawk your Corrupted Text. Your blame infests this thread like a virus, peacegirl.

I will blame you for corrupting the meaning of the text! You are a fraud!!

ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

[Florence Jellem]

peacegirl, dear, try to think of it this way: 3 is to 6, as 4 is to 8, and this mathematically undeniable relation does not need your permission to be true. So, too, that ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic text is mathematically undeniable, and does not need your permission to be true.

You may continue to reject this mathematically undeniable relation, and you have that right of way. But in so doing you put the cart before the horse. Dear, the proof is in the pudding, but it’s also true that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make her think.

Just see how the Authentic Text states that Einstein was right, whereas for years you have been arguing that he was wrong. Why do you hate and resent your father so?

We at will continue to interpret the Authentic Text as written by the author in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you, dear.

#TrueStewardship

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

peacegirl, dear, try to think of it this way: 3 is to 6, as 4 is to 8, and this mathematically undeniable relation does not need your permission to be true. So, too, that ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic text is mathematically undeniable, and does not need your permission to be true.

You may continue to reject this mathematically undeniable relation, and you have that right of way. But in so doing you put the cart before the horse. Dear, the proof is in the pudding, but it’s also true that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make her think.

Just see how the Authentic Text states that Einstein was right, whereas for years you have been arguing that he was wrong. Why do you hate and resent your father so?

We at will continue to interpret the Authentic Text as written by the author in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you, dear.

#TrueStewardship

David, what about GPS systems not needing general relativity to work?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will blame you

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, what about GPS systems not needing general relativity to work?

So you fond a Goober on Google who claimed that. If Google says it, it must be true, right, dear?

Consequently, you are compelled of your own free will to agree that ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text, because Google says he is. I'm glad you now agree. Heretofore you have been infecting this thread like a virus. Now that you agree that ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I trust we can all move on with his profound exegesis without further blame from you.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, what about GPS systems not needing general relativity to work?

Let's also not forget that your father, in the Authentic Text, stated that Einstein was correct. Here, you deny that Einstein was correct, and so you repudiate your father in a most conspicuous way.

Why do you hate and resent your father, peacegirl?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Let's also not forget that your father, in the Authentic Text, stated that Einstein was correct. Here, you deny that Einstein was correct, and so you repudiate your father in a most conspicuous way.

Why do you hate and resent your father, peacegirl?

Let us not forget the full context, Flo - the Author stated that "Einstein was right" in the same manner and to the same extent that the Author himself was correct.



Thus, to reject and/or Corrupt the Author's unambiguous statement that "Einstein was right" is not only to reject Einstein's theories - it is also to reject the very basis of the Authentic Text's claim to be correct! It not simply a Corruption like any of the many, many Corruptions found in peacegirl's Corrupted Text; it is part and parcel of the Corrupted Text's total repudiation of the Authentic Text.

This is why the Corrupted Text is Corrupt and must be rejected.