A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The return of SymbolGod!

That reminds me of this one:

The content of this book is not metaphorical.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The content of this book is not metaphorical.

I know! The claim that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" is absolutely literal.

[-FX-]

It's a revolution!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

It's a revolution!

Yes FX, it’s a revolution IN THOUGHT which removes the need for a physical revolution! You’re brainwashed! Think carefully about this. Why would anyone go to such great lengths to not only reject this author, but decimate him. There’s something wrong here. If you analyze this, you will see this has nothing to with him at all. It’s about them. They are so angry that they may be wrong. They did what the auror urged the reader not to do, but who cares about what the author asks. The greater the lulz, the greater the threat to their intellect. That’s what this is about. Plain and:simple: this is about ego, nothing more. It’s sad but true which is why it’s useless for me to try to debate them. Chuck could not answer the basic questions as to why man’s will is not free. In response, he screenshots something that does not answer the question. He has no idea what this discovery is about. I’m trying to let you know not to give up on this book. If you do, it’s your loss but I have to move on. Ask one trkevant question relayed to why man’s will is not free, according to this author and I will answer you. Otherwise I’m done here.

[-FX-]

Yes, yes. It's a great mystery.

[256 colors]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By now I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using the word God only as a symbol for the former.
... God does not change the fact that He is a reality. ... God? ... this is God, ... God is a reality, correct?" ...

Every human being is and has been obeying God's will -

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The return of SymbolGod!

That reminds me of this one:

peacegirl: words have meaning. If you do not intend to invoke a deity, then, do not invoke a deity, it is so simple.

Since words have meaning, then, the word "God" can never be used as a "symbol" for a non-God thing or topic.

Since belief in God is faith, then, why use a "reality" argument? Evidence of existence of a thing negates the need to believe or have faith.

Are you truly anti-faith?



Regardless of the presence or absence of faith, peacegirl, all God talk is theology or atheology.

Books and literature with views about God and gods, and other theology and atheology, are very marketable.

It is somewhere between amusing and tragic to see you spending years and years typing to a message board about God, when you could be making big bank by just trying to send your manuscript to a publisher of theology. There are many publishers, and, an ample market, peacegirl.

Are you certain of your goals, peacegirl?

Have you not thought this through yet?

I am not judging you, I am curious about why you type so much on instead of publishing.

That $3000 could have gone towards the creation of a website dedicated to access to written words about God and related topics, peacegirl.

Imagine! You could have found some lawyers who share your worldview, and created an educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit org, dedicated to hosting an online library of works and words about your theological views.

Then, if you had a website and a nonprofit devoted to publishing and sharing your literature, documents, manuscripts, and other views on the Transcendent, you could get some super rich donors who are really into tax write-offs, take their tax-deductible donations, and shift the money to yourself, to your website admin, to other authors, and to anyone you feel like, without pesky labor laws or taxes or payroll deductions.

Then, your nonprofit that publishes literature about God and gods could host conferences! In fancy hotels! All weekend! And shift the tax-free donation money to the authors whose works can be sold at the conferences! And, the book, lit, and merch sales are also tax-free! And the cost of the conferences is lower for you, since you have a nonprofit. Nonprofit discount is usually 10%. And most of your conference attendees could also write off all conference-related expenses, and pay no taxes on that money, either!

And, your authors and conference speakers do not even need to use their legal names! They can use stage names, it's okay.

Those fake name folks can get that money with no real-world or local risks at all. For safety!

Ohh, peacegirl, girrrrrrlllllll, you are missing out on both spreading your God ideas and making money doing so.

But that's just my opinion, of course.

[peacegirl]

[quote=256 colors;1397227]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By now I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using the word God only as a symbol for the former.
... God does not change the fact that He is a reality. ... God? ... this is God, ... God is a reality, correct?" ...

Every human being is and has been obeying God's will -

He was very clear what the word God meant in the context he used it. I understand your point, but this does not mean he shouldn't have used the word in the way he clarified.
Because will is not free, when seen in total perspective, God (or the mathematical laws that compel us to move in the direction of greater satisfaction) is good, although evil (or hurt in human relations) is still an unsolved factor. If this wording bothers you, the book may not be your cup of tea. I don't agree that his words don't have a scientific basis or that using the word God has confused anyone. The people here already ruined his credibility. It's pure defamation. These people will do anything to hurt him, and your comment about his writing just added another layer of mockery for them to use.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The return of SymbolGod!

That reminds me of this one:

Originally Posted by 256 colors

peacegirl: words have meaning. If you do not intend to invoke a deity, then, do not invoke a deity, it is so simple.

Again, he used the word appropriately because he clarified what he meant by the word. I don't have a problem with it. In fact, knowing that man's will is not free and that, as a result, there is design to this world, gives me a good feeling. He isn't stopping anyone from their beliefs regarding religion. But as far as the book is concerned, he qualified what he meant. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on this term. Maybe this isn't scientific enough for you because you feel God and science are mutually exclusive. That's your prerogative.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Since words have meaning, then, the word "God" can never be used as a "symbol" for a non-God thing or topic.

To repeat: He qualified what he meant, and he used the word appropriately. This does not mean his work is religious. If you don't like the way he wrote, please don't read it.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Since belief in God is faith, then, why use a "reality" argument? Evidence of existence of a thing negates the need to believe or have faith.

Are you truly anti-faith?

When it comes to this discovery, it's not about faith. I know for a fact that nothing I say will be received without lots of ridicule and mockery. I know that as a fact. I'm glad they gave me thick skin.

After making my discoveries I knew for a fact that God (this mathematical reality) was not a figment of the imagination. The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked "Man's Will Is Not Free." Why should they when they were convinced man's will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth but in a confused sort of way because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said -- "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." When his enemies nailed him to the cross he was heard to say -- "They know not what they do." "Turn the other cheek" he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness, and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused and in spite of every possible criticism how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness and since man does many things considered evil they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile towards any person who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza plus innumerable others pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

<snip>

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil; consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God is real, otherwise, there would be no need for faith. I know that two plus two equals four, I don't have faith that it's true. Well, do you still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with man, and that everything happens by chance? Do you believe that your faith in God has been in vain? You are in for the surprise of your life.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Regardless of the presence or absence of faith, peacegirl, all God talk is theology or atheology.

Books and literature with views about God and gods, and other theology and atheology, are very marketable.

It is somewhere between amusing and tragic to see you spending years and years typing to a message board about God, when you could be making big bank by just trying to send your manuscript to a publisher of theology. There are many publishers, and, an ample market, peacegirl.

Oh my goodness, there is no way in the world would this knowledge be understood by theology when most of religions of the world believe in free will. Calvinism doesn't even cut it.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Are you certain of your goals, peacegirl?

Have you not thought this through yet?

Yes, I am very certain of my goals. I have thought this through and I'm fine where I am. The only problem is getting this knowledge into the right hands. I don't have a way, at least not yet.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

I am not judging you, I am curious about why you type so much on instead of publishing.

I have published the book. I stopped coming to this forum. The only reason I came back (which I admit wasn't a good idea because it stirred things up again), was to show a video where a dog was looking right at his owners and didn't recognize them until he got a little closer and sniffed them. He had been 18 months, I believe, before they found the owners.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

That $3000 could have gone towards the creation of a website dedicated to access to written words about God and related topics, peacegirl.

Why would I do that when I'm not religious in the slightest? Now his voice is saved. The tapes will only last so long. That was a very important step in preserving his work.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Imagine! You could have found some lawyers who share your worldview, and created an educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit org, dedicated to hosting an online library of works and words about your theological views.

Then, if you had a website and a nonprofit devoted to publishing and sharing your literature, documents, manuscripts, and other views on the Transcendent, you could get some super rich donors who are really into tax write-offs, take their tax-deductible donations, and shift the money to yourself, to your website admin, to other authors, and to anyone you feel like, without pesky labor laws or taxes or payroll deductions.

Then, your nonprofit that publishes literature about God and gods could host conferences! In fancy hotels! All weekend! And shift the tax-free donation money to the authors whose works can be sold at the conferences! And, the book, lit, and merch sales are also tax-free! And the cost of the conferences is lower for you, since you have a nonprofit. Nonprofit discount is usually 10%. And most of your conference attendees could also write off all conference-related expenses, and pay no taxes on that money, either!

And, your authors and conference speakers do not even need to use their legal names! They can use stage names, it's okay.

Those fake name folks can get that money with no real-world or local risks at all. For safety!

Ohh, peacegirl, girrrrrrlllllll, you are missing out on both spreading your God ideas and making money doing so.

But that's just my opinion, of course.

Now you're goofing on me. I wanted to do a non-profit for my children's safety organization, but it's too time intensive. Here is the link to my children's book, named after Lessans, who was my inspiration.

https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Safe-...s%2C340&sr=8-1

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to do a non-profit for my children's safety organization, but it's too time intensive.

Keep in mind that peacegirl is very, very busy.

[256 colors]

Hey, peacegirl, thanks for replying. No need to quote. I appreciate that you explained your position, especially in response to my questions and statements. No, I was not goofing on you regarding either publication or the nonprofit stuff.

I also just returned to after a very long time away. Thank you for giving me your update, now I have a better understanding of this thread's early 2024 popularity. from your point of view. I appreciate that.

My apologies for not knowing you had published a book. Thanks for the link. I like how you named your safety book after Seymour, that's cute.

Further apologies for not knowing that you'd thought of making a nonprofit to do your outreach and other work on your topic. You're correct about the time involved. I wasn't clowning you at all, peacegirl. I was kind of showing off, for other members, who may know me and/or things I may have allegedly done in the past, that I now regret. But I already know that there's little interest in this or these topics.

As to the dog-sniff memory, that's definitely a thing. I think there may be studies on it. I mean that's great, but, they need to watch a video compilation of dogs being reunited with owners who have been overseas in the military, or in the hospital, or otherwise apart. So sweet; the dogs are joyful.

Mass media sometimes reports on dogs that traveled long distances, once were lost but now are found, etc, and it's really amazing how dogs can find their people and/or homes despite miles and/or years.

Anyway, thanks again for replying. I still feel that Lessans-text-related posts would fit better if categorized, accepted, and discussed as a theological viewpoint. For example, I used to watch an old TV show called "Through the Bible with Les Feldick." It was on cable TV every Sunday, I think. My late spouse and I were not believers, but, we loved his take. I mean, yes, we yelled "LES FELDICK" a lot, as it amused us, at the time.

It wasn't necessary to believe what Les was saying. It was educational to learn how he interpreted Biblical text, and why. He'd flip back and forth to explain how verses were related, such as in regards to prophecies. It was really different.

Is there even a subforum for this? ahh...

I had no iidea that your actual name was Janis Rafael. That's gotta be funny, to SOMEONE, please, lawd... unreal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Hey, peacegirl, thanks for replying. No need to quote. I appreciate that you explained your position, especially in response to my questions and statements. No, I was not goofing on you regarding either publication or the nonprofit stuff.

I also just returned to after a very long time away. Thank you for giving me your update, now I have a better understanding of this thread's early 2024 popularity. from your point of view. I appreciate that.

My apologies for not knowing you had published a book. Thanks for the link. I like how you named your safety book after Seymour, that's cute.

Further apologies for not knowing that you'd thought of making a nonprofit to do your outreach and other work on your topic. You're correct about the time involved. I wasn't clowning you at all, peacegirl. I was kind of showing off, for other members, who may know me and/or things I may have allegedly done in the past, that I now regret. But I already know that there's little interest in this or these topics.[

I am finding interest, just not with this audience. They made so much fun of him based on a few excerpts, that no one would get a true glimpse of what this book is even about. David was the one that came closest, but he still failed when he thought that "compelled, of your own free will, was contradictory. Then he made fun because of that one sentence regarding homosexuality, which meant nothing in regard to the main concept. I even showed them that he said whoever you want to be with is your business. Do you think they cared? No.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

As to the dog-sniff memory, that's definitely a thing. I think there may be studies on it. I mean that's great, but, they need to watch a video compilation of dogs being reunited with owners who have been overseas in the military, or in the hospital, or otherwise apart. So sweet; the dogs are joyful.

This was only to show that the experiment they thought PROVED dogs can actually identify their owners from sight alone, is poorly designed. Something is wrong here. And this whole observation supported Lessans' "theory" (if you want to call it that) that light is not carrying the image.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Mass media sometimes reports on dogs that traveled long distances, once were lost but now are found, etc, and it's really amazing how dogs can find their people and/or homes despite miles and/or years.

It is. I had a dog that somehow found my brother's house 2 miles away. My sister-in-law called me and said your dog is sitting on my front porch. To this day, I still don't know how he found the house?

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Anyway, thanks again for replying. I still feel that Lessans-text-related posts would fit better if categorized, accepted, and discussed as a theological viewpoint. For example, I used to watch an old TV show called "Through the Bible with Les Feldick." It was on cable TV every Sunday, I think. My late spouse and I were not believers, but, we loved his take. I mean, yes, we yelled "LES FELDICK" a lot, as it amused us, at the time.

You are wrong. This has nothing to do with religion. The word God only meant the laws that govern our universe, and he clarified that. That's all he had to do. Religion does not have a monopoly on this word, and I actually think it's a word that makes the book more approachable. It's not as dry.
But...I can understand the secularists abhorring this word. Oh well, you can't satisfy everyone all of the time.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

It wasn't necessary to believe what Les was saying. It was educational to learn how he interpreted Biblical text, and why. He'd flip back and forth to explain how verses were related, such as in regards to prophecies. It was really different.

Why are you calling him Les? That wasn't his name. Are you goofing on me again? You sound like a very sarcastic individual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Is there even a subforum for this? ahh...

I had no iidea that your actual name was Janis Rafael. That's gotta be funny, to SOMEONE, please, lawd... unreal.

What's so funny 256? I don't get your sense of humor.

[256 colors]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong. This has nothing to do with religion. The word God only meant the laws that govern our universe, and he clarified that. That's all he had to do. Religion does not have a monopoly on this word, and I actually think it's a word that makes the book more approachable. It's not as dry.
But...I can understand the secularists abhorring this word. Oh well, you can't satisfy everyone all of the time.

Why are you calling him Les? That wasn't his name. Are you goofing on me again? You sound like a very sarcastic individual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What's so funny 256? I don't get your sense of humor.

Hi peacegirl,

My reference to "Les" was a continuation of my story about really liking the TV show/Bible study, "Through the Bible, with Les Feldick," despite not agreeing with him entirely, if at all. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Regarding the word "God," peacegirl, may I propose the idea that it is not "the secularists" who primarily lack agreement on the definition and use of this word?

May I further propose that both the agreements and the disagreements on the meaning of the word "God," especially with a capital G, are so contentious and distracting that any other word would be more explanatory, if not accurate? I ask as a writer, as a poet, as a person who feels and sees that words have meaning.

Am I sarcastic? Sometimes, but not now.

Why do I think it's amusing that your name is Janis Rafael?

I made a joke upthread, saying that this was "the Joplin spelling, not the Nice way to spell it." Then I made a second joke, that an anagram of the last name would be "RAEL AF." In some places online, "AF" means "as fuck."

Hi, I'm Janice Rael. Spelled the Nice way. I'm Rael as fuck.

Which is unreal, but since 1993, no one has ever been amused by my saying so.

I've been known to take things literally. It turns out, I'm autistic.

I am not being rude to you, peacegirl. This isn't sarcasm. This is me NOT being rude or sarcastic. We're both older women. We both write. I happen to have some specific experience on some specific subjects, and, this thread is in the categories of my autistic special interests.

I am asking you, an adult author who appears to have a message to convey, some questions regarding your message, your meaning, your intentions, your actions, and your opportunities. Yes, I know that none of this is my concern; neither do you owe me an answer of any kind.

My dead husband used to call me "Helpy Helperton." It was meant with sarcasm and contempt, and a little humor, to describe my overwhelming need to help everyone else except myself. You know, ignoring the logs in my own eyes [but not the rods and cones], while fully devoted to everyone else's eye specks.

It turns out that this is a characteristic of codependency, and maybe other things. I can also spot everyone else's typos, but, never my own, which is more than an accurate example, for me. It's also a PTSD trigger that can cause dissociation and distrust in ... the objective, observable reality that I spend time discussing online, without admitting that sometimes, I'm uncertain.

But then my hand suddenly says "BONE SPURS ON OSTEOARTHRITIS, HAHA," which leads me in other directions. IF there is a Creator, what's the deal with the bone spurs? Little tiny inner knuckle razors? Why?? It was Platypus Day, wasn't it.

Then I summarize with "Karma is Rael," referencing my surname and the concept of karma, another separate subject.

Once upon a time, an elder Janice told me, "We Janices have to stick together." Over the years, I've repeated this to every other Janice I've ever met, in person or online. A sub-joke was whether or not "we" "included" the "Janis"-spelled ones. The answer, over time, ended up being "yes, we include all spellings and pronunciations of Janice/Janis."

I'm in the Philadelphia PA area, a very racially diverse city and region. I've learned that the name is usually said "JAN-iss" for white women, and "Jah-NIECE" for Black women, here on the East Coast USA. But, accents are all over, and, maybe the name has even more ways of sounding that I just haven't heard yet.

But let me end by adding that "Janet" is always "Miss Jackson, if you're nasty." Then, "Miss Jackson" may be "Ms Jackson," to whom we are sorry, and we are for real (not for Rael) (and we must ask: "Forever, forever, ever, forever, ever?"). Never meant to make your daughter cry. To which, we then must admit that we are "four eels," and "several fish, and not a guy."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong. This has nothing to do with religion. The word God only meant the laws that govern our universe, and he clarified that. That's all he had to do. Religion does not have a monopoly on this word, and I actually think it's a word that makes the book more approachable. It's not as dry.
But...I can understand the secularists abhorring this word. Oh well, you can't satisfy everyone all of the time.

Why are you calling him Les? That wasn't his name. Are you goofing on me again? You sound like a very sarcastic individual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What's so funny 256? I don't get your sense of humor.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Hi peacegirl,

My reference to "Les" was a continuation of my story about really liking the TV show/Bible study, "Through the Bible, with Les Feldick," despite not agreeing with him entirely, if at all. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

I don't know who he is. I'll look him up.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Regarding the word "God," peacegirl, may I propose the idea that it is not "the secularists" who primarily lack agreement on the definition and use of this word?

May I further propose that both the agreements and the disagreements on the meaning of the word "God," especially with a capital G, are so contentious and distracting that any other word would be more explanatory, if not accurate? I ask as a writer, as a poet, as a person who feels and sees that words have meaning.

You can't please everyone. Lessans was clear in what was meant by the word God. It never bothered me. Like I said, if it bothers anyone, they shouldn't read the book. The knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism indicates there is design to our world. You don't have to believe in a personal god/God for this to be true.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Am I sarcastic? Sometimes, but not now.

Why do I think it's amusing that your name is Janis Rafael?

I made a joke upthread, saying that this was "the Joplin spelling, not the Nice way to spell it." Then I made a second joke, that an anagram of the last name would be "RAEL AF." In some places online, "AF" means "as fuck."

Hi, I'm Janice Rael. Spelled the Nice way. I'm Rael as fuck.

Which is unreal, but since 1993, no one has ever been amused by my saying so.

I guess I didn't get either of your jokes.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

I've been known to take things literally. It turns out, I'm autistic.

You sound a little manic. Not meant to hurt your feelings.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

I am not being rude to you, peacegirl. This isn't sarcasm. This is me NOT being rude or sarcastic. We're both older women. We both write. I happen to have some specific experience on some specific subjects, and, this thread is in the categories of my autistic special interests.

I am asking you, an adult author who appears to have a message to convey, some questions regarding your message, your meaning, your intentions, your actions, and your opportunities. Yes, I know that none of this is my concern; neither do you owe me an answer of any kind.

My dead husband used to call me "Helpy Helperton." It was meant with sarcasm and contempt, and a little humor, to describe my overwhelming need to help everyone else except myself. You know, ignoring the logs in my own eyes [but not the rods and cones], while fully devoted to everyone else's eye specks.

I guess it boils down to what YOUR intention is. My message is valuable, my meaning is clear, my intentions are pure, my actions are honorable, and my opportunities are coming.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

It turns out that this is a characteristic of codependency, and maybe other things. I can also spot everyone else's typos, but, never my own, which is more than an accurate example, for me. It's also a PTSD trigger that can cause dissociation and distrust in ... the objective, observable reality that I spend time discussing online, without admitting that sometimes, I'm uncertain.

I notice typos all the time. Nowadays with auto-correction, it's much easier to catch those pesky typos and grammar faux pas.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

But then my hand suddenly says "BONE SPURS ON OSTEOARTHRITIS, HAHA," which leads me in other directions. IF there is a Creator, what's the deal with the bone spurs? Little tiny inner knuckle razors? Why?? It was Platypus Day, wasn't it.

Then I summarize with "Karma is Rael," referencing my surname and the concept of karma, another separate subject.

Once upon a time, an elder Janice told me, "We Janices have to stick together." Over the years, I've repeated this to every other Janice I've ever met, in person or online. A sub-joke was whether or not "we" "included" the "Janis"-spelled ones. The answer, over time, ended up being "yes, we include all spellings and pronunciations of Janice/Janis."

I'm in the Philadelphia PA area, a very racially diverse city and region. I've learned that the name is usually said "JAN-iss" for white women, and "Jah-NIECE" for Black women, here on the East Coast USA. But, accents are all over, and, maybe the name has even more ways of sounding that I just haven't heard yet.

But let me end by adding that "Janet" is always "Miss Jackson, if you're nasty." Then, "Miss Jackson" may be "Ms Jackson," to whom we are sorry, and we are for real (not for Rael) (and we must ask: "Forever, forever, ever, forever, ever?"). Never meant to make your daughter cry. To which, we then must admit that we are "four eels," and "several fish, and not a guy."

Nice song!

Outkast - Ms. Jackson (Lyrics) | I'm sorry, Ms. Jackson, ooh, I am for real Never meant to make your - YouTube

[256 colors]

Wow, what a stretch! Who says it wasn't a nice way to spell my name? I like my spelling. No one ever said to me: not a nice way to spell it. Strange.

The joke about spelling "Janice" in "the Nice way," and/or, spelliing "Janis" in either "the Joplin way" or "the Ian way" is a reference to the names being homophones, with an additional reference (or two) to pop culture.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

The joke about spelling "Janice" in "the Nice way," and/or, spelliing "Janis" in either "the Joplin way" or "the Ian way" is a reference to the names being homophones, with an additional reference (or two) to pop culture.

Considering what this thread is about, what is your point?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Considering what this thread is about, what is your point?

Considering this thread is about nothing, and you are always complaining how mean people are to you, I think she ist trying to be nice. But when people are nice to you or try to help you, you lash out at them, too. But anyway, there you go again just a couple posts up, saying light does not carry an image to the eye. That’s right, for the bazillionth time, NO ONE says light carries an image to the eye. Light does not “carry” anything — it’s just light. But of course you are compelled of your own free will to construct the same stupid strawmen over and over again.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

You know, ignoring the logs in my own eyes [but not the rods and cones], while fully devoted to everyone else's eye specks.]

Rods and cones? How many times does peacegirl have to explain that the eye is not a sense organ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Considering this thread is about nothing,

That's your opinion

Originally Posted by davidm

... and you are always complaining how mean people are to you,

People are mean because they have made me a target thinking they are right in rejecting the claims. Unbelievable!

Originally Posted by davidm

I think she ist trying to be nice. But when people are nice to you or try to help you, you lash out at them, too.

More BS.

Originally Posted by davidm

But anyway, there you go again just a couple posts up, saying light does not carry an image to the eye. That’s right, for the bazillionth time, NO ONE says light carries an image to the eye. Light does not “carry” anything — it’s just light. But of course you are compelled of your own free will to construct the same stupid strawmen over and over again.

No David. Scientists believe the image (based on the frequency of the wave) travels through space and time. It does not. Light travels at 186 thousand miles a second, which is true. We see the object (based on the electromagnetic spectrum) when we look at the object directly DUE TO HOW THE EYES WORK, not how light works.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David. Scientists believe the image (based on the frequency of the wave) travels through space and time.

No, peacegirl, scientists do not believe that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, peacegirl, scientists do not believe that.

Yes they do. They just use different terms that mean the same thing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they do. They just use different terms that mean the same thing.

No, peacegirl, you know jack shit about science, or what scientists believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, peacegirl, you know jack shit about science, or what scientists believe.

I don't care what you think. You embarrass yourself when you thought the statement "you were compelled, of your own free will" was a contradiction. You can't even consider the possibility that he was right, and science got it wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you think. You embarrass yourself when you thought the statement "you were compelled, of your own free will" was a contradiction. You can't even consider the possibility that he was right, and science got it wrong.

I know you don’t care, because you prefer to remain an ignoramus on this and every other subject. Remember the 32-page paper that The Lone Ranger, a biologist, wrote just for you, explaining how light and sight work down to the atomic level? You admitted that you refused to read it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I know you don’t care, because you prefer to remain an ignoramus on this and every other subject. Remember the 32-page paper that The Lone Ranger, a biologist, wrote just for you, explaining how light and sight work down to the atomic level? You admitted that you refused to read it.

He gave a very good explanation of what most scientists believe to be true. I realize that you believe it takes gall to dispute this long held theory, but that's too bad David. You can go now.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He gave a very good explanation of what most scientists believe to be true. I realize that you believe it takes gall to dispute this long held theory, but that's too bad David. You can go now.

No, I think I’ll stay, the Page MMC party draws nigh.

And you have no idea what The Lone Ranger wrote, because you admitted that you refused to read it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, I think I’ll stay, the Page MMC party draws nigh.

And you have no idea what The Lone Ranger wrote, because you admitted that you refused to read it.

Nothing he wrote disproves Lessans' claim. Lessans didn't dispute how the eyes work in general. He only disputed one thing, which you can't even entertain. It's blasphemous! You can't even accept the proof that dogs cannot recognize their masters from sight alone.