A revolution in thought

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had all done what Lessans asked, this discussion would have been completely different.

Indeed. Since Lessans essentially asks that we suspend critical inquiry and accept everything he dictates as-is, it would largely consist of us saying "Gosh, that Lessans sure is brilliant! To think he figured all this out on his own! Wow!" and you replying "I know, right? Here, let me link you some more walls of text from the book, so we can all gather around and bask in the glow of his majesty!"

So, yeah, fuck that noise. I like our way better.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If, according to Lessans, Love is based on sex, where does that leave a parent child relationship, of in fact any relationship between people who are not married. Is there no possability of love without the sex act to initiate it? There are a lot of people that I feel a kind of love for but I have not, and will not, have sex with.

Right Doc, what you say goes without saying.

Okay if Lessans says that love is based on sex, then Lessans would be just content being a eunuch. Otherwise he would have a hell of a time hugging someone without fullfillment.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Kael

Indeed. Since Lessans essentially asks that we suspend critical inquiry and accept everything he dictates as-is, it would largely consist of us saying "Gosh, that Lessans sure is brilliant! To think he figured all this out on his own! Wow!" and you replying "I know, right? Here, let me link you some more walls of text from the book, so we can all gather around and bask in the glow of his majesty!"

So, yeah, fuck that noise. I like our way better.

Exactly so.

In peacegirl's world, there's apparently one and only one way to judge a person's integrity and intelligence. If (s)he uncritically swallows Lessans' bilge and asks for more, then (s)he is a person of intelligence and integrity. Otherwise ... not.

Isn't it nice when you can simply make stuff up like that? It makes debates so much easier. Simply define words to mean what you want them to mean and then you can set up a wholly-unsupported and completely tautological "argument" which you can peddle as "undeniable truth." Pretend that what you're peddling is a well-supported, consistent, logically-sound, "mathematical" and "scientific" proposition. Insist that anyone who doesn't uncritically swallow your bilge is lacking in intelligence and/or is a bad, bad person.


It's a wonderful formula for success, if only you can overcome two small obstacles: 1.) you have to be able to live with yourself, and 2.) you have to somehow break people of the nasty habit of thinking.

[Awareness]

If you believe that the prevention of war, crime, poverty, and hatred is dehumanizing, you are on another planet. If you had all done what Lessans asked, this discussion would have been completely different.[/QUOTE]

Hey back to square one Peacegirl!

Even other planets would not want you Peacegirl, everywhere is being bad sometimes good.

Having the idea of preventing WAR, CRIME, POVERTY and hatred as a whole is lack of understanding human relations.

Prevention as a whole is IDIOTIC Peacegirl. Fighting war, fighting crime, fighting poverty, and fighting hatred now that has been here scince the dawn of time, and is ALSO man at it's best.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Awareness

Right Doc, what you say goes without saying.

Then why did I bother saying it?
Seriously it's nice to know someone is reading my posts, thankyou.

[davidm]

I read your posts, thedoc. And I appreciate your efforts to salvage the 200-page party, which got undermined by a lot of party poopers.

[Awareness]

David, your opinion doesn't mean anything to me. You have neve seriously engaged in a fair discussion, therefore your comment that his premise was a tautology, and worse yet, a modal fallacy, is the biggest joke I've ever heard

.

Youre reaction proves that Davidm's opinion means something to you, or you would not care, hence your "violence". Which is such a baby.

[Awareness]

Stop trying salvaging a SALE Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

At least I ended it right, here's another version,

YouTube - ‪Doris Day sings The...

I could watch her sing anytime.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by Awareness

Right Doc, what you say goes without saying.

Okay if Lessans says that love is based on sex, then Lessans would be just content being a eunuch. Otherwise he would have a hell of a time hugging someone without fullfillment.

From page 137:

. . . it is impossible for a boy and girl to be attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing this individual might be considered if they know in advance that this person was born without any sexual organs which knowledge makes them aware that this anomaly of nature is incapable of giving or receiving sexual satisfaction. Consequently, the degree of love in courtship varies depending on the extent of possible physical satisfaction. This means that before sexual intercourse takes place the degree with which one could fall in love is determined by the degree with which the desire to possess a particular person in the ultimate act, as in marriage, is encouraged. The more one is encouraged the greater will be the feeling of love or the desire to possess. Consequently, unless the possibility exists that a boy and girl could eventually have some kind of sexual relation, they could never fall in love with each other.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

At least I ended it right, here's another version,

YouTube - ‪Doris Day sings The Party's Over‬‏

I could watch her sing anytime.

Hey, we're already at Page 221!

At this rate, the 300 Page Parteh isn't that far off!

Since I firmly believe peacegirl will post in this thread until she dies, there should be plenty of parties in the future. Hopefully at some point only peacegirl will be posting, but I'm sure she can run off at the mouth to provide many parties to come.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

??

[Awareness]

it is impossible for a boy and girl to be attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing this individual might be considered if they know in advance that this person was born without any sexual organs which knowledge makes them aware that this anomaly of nature is incapable of giving or receiving sexual satisfaction. Consequently, the degree of love in courtship varies depending on the extent of possible physical satisfaction. This means that before sexual intercourse takes place the degree with which one could fall in love is determined by the degree with which the desire to possess a particular person in the ultimate act, as in marriage, is encouraged. The more one is encouraged the greater will be the feeling of love or the desire to possess. Consequently, unless the possibility exists that a boy and girl could eventually have some kind of sexual relation, they could never fall in love with each other.

Everyone could fall in love with each other.

Sexual intercourse is for us A means to reach each other and for a man and a woman it is a perfect fit.

desire comes from physical attraction.
love comes from personal attraction.
( sex is just more fantastic, when it is just a means)

But God has to look at the whole picture, and there is no time to wait for loved ones, to keep the population growing. And that is where, amongst others Seymour Lessans also comes in.

Hence the BAD, the GOOD, and the ........? ( You got It!, every time I look into your eyes.........)

[But]

...
Last edited by Awareness; Today at 01:15. Reason: Brain

That is pure awesomeness.

[But]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

More to the point, you're saying that there won't be any laws but there will be lawmakers. That's preposterous. What do you think "lawmakers" do? [HINT: They are "makers" of "laws."]

What if it takes them astronomical time to make these laws? They are not made yet, but the lawmakers are busy doing their job. For the record, I'm drunk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought all problems will have been solved? You keep saying so. There can't be human caused global warming if all nations, and all people, would never choose to contribute to pollution. You also said most illnesses will cease to exist (no explanation given really). Someone with a genetic issue discovered during testing would, of course, be unable to choose to have a child and risk it being born with a defect. Why would anyone choose to physically explore space, which is filled with dangers, rather than focus on building superpowerful telescopes through which we could see the whole universe in real time with our efferent vision and communicate instantly with aliens via high powered laser pulses? Heck, we won't even have homosexuals to liven up the place according to Lessens, for reasons unknown.

I'm not going to continue the discussion because it's a lost cause, but I don't want to leave LadyShea with any misunderstandings. I am not telling you not tell someone they are beautiful in this society because there is so much negativity that we need to counteract all that negativity with compliments to balance it out. If my daughter came to me and said, "Do you think I'm beautiful", I wouldn't go into a long explanation of why the words beautiful and ugly don't symbolize reality. I would say, "Of course you are, honey." Like Dr. Phil said, for every negative comment, you need to give ten attaboys. Sidebar: Please don't ask me for supportive evidence on how I know that 10 attaboys is the right amount, and not 20 or 30 or 40? You ask me for proof of sentences that have nothing to do with the proof that his premises are valid and sound which is the only proof that is necessary.

As far as all problems being solved, no, not all problems will be solved. A lot of illness will disappear, that is true, because people will not be as stressed out. As a result, they won't go around shooting people in malls and job sites and schools. Also, profit making will never come before safety, therefore drug companies will be compelled, for the very first time, to admit they really don't know if a particular drug will help someone, or harm them in the long term. I'm sorry if you would feel bored in a world where conscience is at a 10 instead of at a 5. Sidebar: Please don't ask me how I know that conscience will be at a 10, and not a 20 or 30 or 40. Do you see what you do LadyShea? You ask me for evidence on things that are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with the evidence needed to support his premise (i.e., that man's will is not free). There is still much to learn about genetic illnesses, and exploration into stem cell therapy and the genome project is just beginning.

There is much to explore in our world, and it will make it easier when we don't have to focus on war, and use a lot of our resources for this purpose. By the way, homosexuals are not here for the purpose of livening up the place so LadyShea will be less bored. Pollution will be more easily controlled because people will be compelled to take responsibility for their actions, and, consequently, will desire to reduce their own carbon footprint. It's so funny to me because the very thing that is most feared (burning ourselves up due to the greenhouse effect) will be eliminated in the new world, yet the anger I feel in this thread is beyond my comprehension. There is no way to envision how the world will look when all war and crime are permanently removed. If you think our world as it exists is the ultimate, then stay in it. But remember that removing war and crime does not a robotic world make. That's only in your imagination. There is no telling how much more money will be available for all kinds of research that will catapult our world into new and exciting horizons.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, there is only one package, and that is whether something is a true hurt, not an imaginary hurt. That is the only standard that will be used.

Definition of hurt: Doing to somebody what they do not want done to themselves. If they want something done to themselves, then it's not a hurt. If they think something is good, then it's not a hurt. If they think something is right, then it's not a hurt. Giving their own meaning to their existence is going to be easier than ever because no one is going to tell them what path to take in life. Geeeezeee, the misinterpretation in here is getting worse instead of better.

Indeed. As I said - all actions are reduced to either good or bad. Real life doesn't work like that and does not come with these predefined characteristics. We label things good or bad depending on our point of view.

Take the example of the inquisitor I mentioned. Many will see him as a monster, persecuting people, torturing them, and making them confess and recant their heresies. But from the point of view of the Inquisitor, he does the work of his god, using temporary pain to save his victims from eternal anguish in hell. According to him, he is doing his victims a favor.

Take the example of the Fat Man and the Train. A train is trundling down some tracks, impossible to steer. It will pass under a bridge, and then come to a halt at the end - where 3 people are standing that will be crushed to death if you do not act. There is no time to explain to the fat man. If you push him off the bridge, he will derail the train but undoubtedly die in the process, but 3 people will be saved. Do you have the right to push him off?

All these are complex moral dilemmas. There are many ambiguities, and these are only very simple examples.

In real life, our moral decisions are almost never decisions that boil down to an either / or decision. - we make decisions that influence delicate networks of relationships. It like we are all spiders in the center of a spiderweb, connecting to hundreds of other spiderwebs, each with a person in the middle. Each decision can be good for some of these connections, not have an effect on others, but be bad for others again.

To reduce such a complex fabric of inter-human relations to a simple set of "rules of the road" as your father proposes is, frankly, insulting. Your father insults the intelligence of every other human being around him, because he thinks he can reduce their experience to a simple set of yes / no decisions. I think he was threatened by what he could not understand, so he sought to reduce it to something very simple. His system brings everyone down to his level - that of a rather self-satisfied man ashamed of his lack of education, obsessed with bringing order to a chaotic world he did not understand, and desperate for recognition that he failed to earn. You said that even on his deathbed, he said "my time will come".

Think about it. Wouldn't he have better things to say on his deathbed? Did he really worry about being thought of as a genius when he was dying, surrounded by his loved ones? I would not spend a microsecond on anything like that if I was dying. I would want my kin to know I loved them and was proud to have shared a life with them, and that I was proud to have been a part of the raising of such fine human beings as my children.

But no - even then, he found some time to worry about his preposterous legacy. He had no problem making it your responsibility either, even though you didn't initiate this nonsense. And here you are, wasting your time, money and emotions on his ego-trip, trying to deny mountains of objections and evidence that disproves his idiot screed.

Some guy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You would have to try to fit into a world where everything is divided in neat little packages - Good and Bad, Right and Wrong - you would not be able to give your own meaning to existence at all.

Vivisectus, there is only one package, and that is whether something is a true hurt, not an imaginary hurt. That is the only standard that will be used.

Definition of hurt: Doing to somebody what they do not want done to themselves. If they want something done to themselves, then it's not a hurt. If they think something is good, then it's not a hurt. If they think something is right, then it's not a hurt. Giving their own meaning to their existence is going to be easier than ever because no one is going to tell them what path to take in life. Geeeezeee, the misinterpretation in here is getting worse instead of better.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. As I said - all actions are reduced to either good or bad. Real life doesn't work like that and does not come with these predefined characteristics. We label things good or bad depending on our point of view.

Seriously Vivisectus, how can all actions be reduced to good or bad when there is no mention of good or bad? You, not Lessans, is setting up a standard that he made no mention of, and I will do everything possible to prevent there being a misunderstanding in this thread, although I think it's impossible based on the posts I've been getting.

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth is that the words
good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of
having that person kill me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Take the example of the inquisitor I mentioned. Many will see him as a monster, persecuting people, torturing them, and making them confess and recant their heresies. But from the point of view of the Inquisitor, he does the work of his god, using temporary pain to save his victims from eternal anguish in hell. According to him, he is doing his victims a favor.

I get that, but the justification to defend a religion that interrogates or persecutes others cannot continue to exist under the changes that are going to take place.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Take the example of the Fat Man and the Train. A train is trundling down some tracks, impossible to steer. It will pass under a bridge, and then come to a halt at the end - where 3 people are standing that will be crushed to death if you do not act. There is no time to explain to the fat man. If you push him off the bridge, he will derail the train but undoubtedly die in the process, but 3 people will be saved. Do you have the right to push him off?

This has nothing to do with rights Vivisectus. Everyone is trying to make the best choice, and given this impossible circumstance, it is obvious that the engineer, or whoever is in this unfortunate position, would save 3 in sacrifice of 1. But the interesting point is that if the mechanics are compelled to keep the train in good condition (barring some unusual circumstance that could happen), they won't be put in this position. That's the entire premise of this book; to show how to prevent these devastating situations from arising if these situations have anything to do with our choices.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

All these are complex moral dilemmas. There are many ambiguities, and these are only very simple examples.

It is true that we are faced with very difficult dilemmas, but this does not negate anything that Lessans has discovered. I'm sorry you feel this way, but you are so premature in your judgment that I refuse continue to be in a defensive position. The unfair attack on me and on Lessans before people even know how this discovery extends, is unfortunate because I will move on and you will never know that a revoluationary discovery was in your midst.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In real life, our moral decisions are almost never decisions that boil down to an either / or decision. - we make decisions that influence delicate networks of relationships. It like we are all spiders in the center of a spiderweb, connecting to hundreds of other spiderwebs, each with a person in the middle. Each decision can be good for some of these connections, not have an effect on others, but be bad for others again.

I am not arguing with you about this. So why do you keep bringing this up? It just shows me how ridiculous some of these refutations are. Why can't you read the book (which I asked people to do from day one) and then come back with legitimate questions instead of superimposing your beliefs onto this work?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus"

To reduce such a complex fabric of inter-human relations to a simple set of "rules of the road" as your father proposes is, frankly, insulting. Your father insults the intelligence of every other human being around him, because he thinks he can reduce their experience to a simple set of yes / no decisions. I think he was threatened by what he could not understand, so he sought to reduce it to something very simple. His system brings everyone down to his level - that of a rather self-satisfied man ashamed of his lack of education, obsessed with bringing order to a chaotic world he did not understand, and desperate for recognition that he failed to earn. You said that even on his deathbed, he said "my time will come".

He said his time will come only because his knowledge is undeniable, and he knew that one day people would recognize this knowledge for what it is. You keep trying to make Lessans something he is not. All of these attacks on him don't hold up. I have tried to show you that he was a humble man, but you and everyone else ignores everything I knew about him. I cannot fight against someone's imaginary truth. The way he has been characterized is not true, period. So I can't go on because that's the main thread of this conversation; how deranged and deluded Lessans was. It's a sick thread based on nothing more than people's projections based on their own issues, not his.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

Think about it. Wouldn't he have better things to say on his deathbed? Did he really worry about being thought of as a genius when he was dying, surrounded by his loved ones? I would not spend a microsecond on anything like that if I was dying. I would want my kin to know I loved them and was proud to have shared a life with them, and that I was proud to have been a part of the raising of such fine human beings as my children.

How can you dare judge what someone says on his deathbed. His whole life was trying to help through his discovery, so it was only natural for him to say that all people are equal. He cried when he talked about the blacks and how they have been treated, so how dare you tell me what he should have said or not have said. I knew he loved me and my sister and brother. He also knew that we loved him for what his contribution and it was only natural that he said what he did in his final hours.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But no - even then, he found some time to worry about his preposterous legacy. He had no problem making it your responsibility either, even though you didn't initiate this nonsense. And here you are, wasting your time, money and emotions on his ego-trip, trying to deny mountains of objections and evidence that disproves his idiot screed.

This only shows how wrong people can be. This thread could eventually be a documentary on the thinking of a group of people based on a set of false criteria, and the horrible attacks on a major discovery that follows. Unfortunately, the criteria used was anything but flawless. When people study this thread, it will be in terms of seeing where the belief that Lessans was wrong began a downward spiral of attack and vitriol that developed a life of its own, and could no longer be contained.

[Pyrrho]

Here's a thought experiment that people can try at home. More cooperative and less allergenic objects may be substituted for the cat.

Person A walks into the room and places a cardboard shoebox on the table. They declare, "There is a cat in this box. You may apply any test to this box, except that you may not open the box. Prove that there is no cat in this box."

We weigh the shoebox and compare the weight of the shoebox to an identical shoebox and find that the box weighs almost exactly the same as a box we know to be empty. We repeat this test using 100 identical shoeboxes, and find that the original shoebox weighs almost exactly the same as all of the shoeboxes we know to be empty. There are variances; sometimes the empty box weighs more, sometimes it weighs less. We apply statistical tests and find that the variances are within a range expected by virtue of random chance. There is no indication that the original shoebox contains anything at all, because its weight falls within the range of weights of 100 identical shoeboxes which are known to be empty.

Based on this evidence, we conclude that "There is no cat in this box." The evidence provided by weighing the shoeboxes should be sufficient evidence of this conclusion. There is nothing more to be done; in this world, cats have mass and, by virtue of gravity, have weight. A shoebox containing a cat just naturally weighs more than a shoebox containing nothing but air. We can be reasonably certain that there is no cat in the box.

Person A declares that we haven't proven anything, that there is in fact a cat in the box, but that the cat is a quantum cat whose waveform collapses any time a human applies tests (i.e. observations) to the box. Person A simply knows that there is a cat in the box, and that's that, "Prove me wrong!"

We cannot prove that Person A's assertions are not true, because those assertions make the cat into an unobservable phenomenon.

As a side note, Person A's original assertion did not specify the nature of the cat. For all we know, because we cannot open the box, Person A could have been referring to a photograph of a cat. This is why people need to clearly define their terms. The experiment assumes that Person A was referring to a live (or dead) terrestrial cat, and not a figment of the imagination.

We can get into philosophical discussions of whether or not there is a figurative cat in the box because Person A imagines that one is there, and if Person A imagines something, then it must exist in their consciousness, and if it exists in their consciousness, then it does exist, even if not physically, therefore if Person A imagines that there is a cat in the box, then there is a cat in the box, and because we can't test such things scientifically, therefore there is a cat in the box if Person A says there is, and there is no cat in the box if Person B says there isn't, therefore everybody is right, but Person A's imagination is positive, while Person B's is negative, and negative is bad, so Person B is bad while Person A is good, and so on, and so forth, but that is wandering into the realm of the farcical.

[Doctor X]

Sort of a variation of my "Prove There is No Adult Male Elephant Living in Your Rectal Vault" proof [Available on Laser Disc!--Ed.]

One has to apply so many qualifiers: "it's invisible, it is shrunk, it is weightless" that it is no longer an adult male elephant, just as a weightless "quantum cat" is not, indeed, a cat.

"Disproving a Negative" often involves demonstrating that the required effects of the proposed existence did/do not happen.

--J.D.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To reduce such a complex fabric of inter-human relations to a simple set of "rules of the road" as your father proposes is, frankly, insulting.

I'm surprised by this, Vivisectus. You and I may believe Lessans to be mistaken and obviously so, and we may be very frustrated at his and peacegirl's stubborn refusal to accept what we see as an obvious truth, and we might label that refusal fairly as "arrogance". But I don't see how any of us has been 'insulted' by a mistake.

[Pyrrho]

Well, some days, it feels as if I shat an elephant, so I remain uncertain about the existence of such in cavities best left unexplored.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Here's a thought experiment that people can try at home. More cooperative and less allergenic objects may be substituted for the cat.

Person A walks into the room and places a cardboard shoebox on the table. They declare, "There is a cat in this box. You may apply any test to this box, except that you may not open the box. Prove that there is no cat in this box."

We weigh the shoebox and compare the weight of the shoebox to an identical shoebox and find that the box weighs almost exactly the same as a box we know to be empty. We repeat this test using 100 identical shoeboxes, and find that the original shoebox weighs almost exactly the same as all of the shoeboxes we know to be empty. There are variances; sometimes the empty box weighs more, sometimes it weighs less. We apply statistical tests and find that the variances are within a range expected by virtue of random chance. There is no indication that the original shoebox contains anything at all, because its weight falls within the range of weights of 100 identical shoeboxes which are known to be empty.

Based on this evidence, we conclude that "There is no cat in this box." The evidence provided by weighing the shoeboxes should be sufficient evidence of this conclusion. There is nothing more to be done; in this world, cats have mass and, by virtue of gravity, have weight. A shoebox containing a cat just naturally weighs more than a shoebox containing nothing but air. We can be reasonably certain that there is no cat in the box.

Person A declares that we haven't proven anything, that there is in fact a cat in the box, but that the cat is a quantum cat whose waveform collapses any time a human applies tests (i.e. observations) to the box. Person A simply knows that there is a cat in the box, and that's that, "Prove me wrong!"

We cannot prove that Person A's assertions are not true, because those assertions make the cat into an unobservable phenomenon.

As a side note, Person A's original assertion did not specify the nature of the cat. For all we know, because we cannot open the box, Person A could have been referring to a photograph of a cat. This is why people need to clearly define their terms. The experiment assumes that Person A was referring to a live (or dead) terrestrial cat, and not a figment of the imagination.

We can get into philosophical discussions of whether or not there is a figurative cat in the box because Person A imagines that one is there, and if Person A imagines something, then it must exist in their consciousness, and if it exists in their consciousness, then it does exist, even if not physically, therefore if Person A imagines that there is a cat in the box, then there is a cat in the box, and because we can't test such things scientifically, therefore there is a cat in the box if Person A says there is, and there is no cat in the box if Person B says there isn't, therefore everybody is right, but Person A's imagination is positive, while Person B's is negative, and negative is bad, so Person B is bad while Person A is good, and so on, and so forth, but that is wandering into the realm of the farcical.

The example you just gave doesn't fit at all Pyrrho. The premises upon which this entire discovery is based are falsifiable, so it shows me right there you either didn't read the posts carefully, or you are new to this thread which is ready to self-destruct. Please don't use this strange cat example as some kind of indication that Lessans was wrong or was in an imaginary world. This is the most ridiculous analogy to date.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The unfair attack on me and on Lessans before people even know how this discovery extends, is unfortunate because I will move on and you will never know that a revoluationary discovery was in your midst.

No you won't. Stop lying.

So I can't go on because that's the main thread of this conversation; how deranged and deluded Lessans was.

Yeah but I bet you will go on.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

He cried when he talked about the blacks and how they have been treated

See, he cried about the blacks!

When people study this thread, it will be in terms of seeing where the belief that Lessans was wrong began a downward spiral of attack and vitriol that developed a life of its own, and could no longer be contained.

See newb rules 1, 5, and 6. No one will "study" this thread because the ideas you advance here are nonsensical jabbering. There will be no revolution in thought. Lessans recorded his incoherent and delusional ramblings, and you are unable effectively to communicate his particular species of nonsense because it does not withstand even the smallest amount of scrutiny. This is the way of things, and it will not change. Get used to failure.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to continue the discussion...