A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oracle was my thought because the idea seems databasey.

Then I thought International Bureau of Internal Revenue could be iBIR (pronounced I Beer) and I laughed at my own cleverness for the second time tonight.

Instant No Button! Star Wars funnies FTW!

You just turned the New World into an even darker, more horrifying place altogether shea - you are a sick, sick woman!

You're telling me that in the future, all official administration will work through Siebel???

Ohgods. I feel sick.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He was wrong about everything. His claims about light and vision are demonstrably wrong; it is in fact logically impossible for them to be right.

It is not logically impossible for them to be right. These observations don't contradict special relativity at all, or any other laws of physics. The example you gave regarding the train is perfectly consistent with efferent vision. The only thing that needs to be proved is how the brain is able to focus, using the eyes, to see the external world, not how light works. This would negate the claim that photoreceptors convert into electro-chemical signals that allow the brain to interpret an image.

Originally Posted by davidm

His argument to determinism was philosphically inept; the argument formally both invalid and unsound. The rest of the stuff is just risable malarky, like rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table, etc.

That's false. His argument was sound. There was no modal fallacy in epistemic or logical determinism, and no tautological error.

Originally Posted by davidm

You can't see this because even when confronted with the proofs of his errors, his grotesque wrongness, you shut off your mind and replace it with "Lessans is always right." This is the esence of cultism, of fundamentalism. Your closest kin are the young earth creationists and the flat earthers.

When you can't prove that Lessans is wrong, you call me a fundamentalist which is another phoney accusation. I'm no such thing. I never have said, "Lessans is always right." That's absurd and you know it David. Now you're hitting below the belt because you have nothing to come back with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I believe you that it is honest, but it is not an answer. At least it is not an answer to the question that you were asked. Your refusal to actually answer the question is duly noted. Dodging direct questions is a tried and true method for building credibility, not!

I didn't dodge the question. I just didn't answer you with a yes or no because that would be a trap to make me look like a fundamentalist, or like someone who really isn't sure whether his claims are true. Either answer would have made it look like I'm in a losing position, which I'm not. And because I didn't answer you with a yes or no, which would have been a trap, you're still trapping me by accusing me of using a fake method to build credibility, which is also not true. I can't win, don't you see?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, why did he reference IBM for everything? Did you consider updating that to something more generic?

Actually, when he wrote this, we didn't have the complicated technology that would have allowed the ecomomic system to function smoothly. What would you replace IBM with?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I found the references to IBM amusingly quaint. It's not exactly the powerhouse as it was when he wrote that...

I'd choose Microsoft as the replacement company. Other good choices would be Google or Apple. If you wanted to pretend you're serious, maybe choose Oracle.

But then people would say "these companies weren't even here when he wrote this, so you're a liar that he wrote the book. How much of the book is his writing and how much is your writing?" I let people know that this was written in the 20th century, so you have to read it from his viewpoint. But, I might update this part if everyone thinks it sounds better.

Please note that when the author mentions the 20th century he is
referring to the time period when this discovery was first made. This
book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His
prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was
based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the leading
scientists of his time who could have validated his findings. Though
it has been over 50 years since these findings were uncovered, there
has been no such investigation and, as of yet, this revolutionary
knowledge has not been brought to light. Due to the time lapse since
the book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to
show how the extension of this knowledge applies to our current world
situation, but please be assured that the core of this discovery has not
been altered in any way and is written in the author’s own words. For
purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used
throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But then people would say "these companies weren't even here when he wrote this, so you're a liar that he wrote the book. How much of the book is his writing and how much is your writing?" I let people know that this was written in the 20th century, so you have to read it from his viewpoint. But, I might update this part if everyone thinks it sounds better.

Of all the things I'd criticize this book for, it wouldn't be for using IBM as an example of a powerful company capable of what Lessans had planned. Especially at the time I assume he wrote this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Of all the things I'd criticize this book for, it wouldn't be for using IBM as an example of a powerful company capable of what Lessans had planned. Especially at the time I assume he wrote this.

Specious, then you were missing the point. It wasn't about a particular company; it was about the technology that would allow this worldwide record keeping of everyone's standard of living just in case the person lost his job and needed the taxpayers support to live according to his standard living. You can change this company to any company you want. It doesn't matter which company is hired, as long as the company that is hired does the job it was hired to do.

[peacegirl]

I have a short story that I believe is relevant to this conversation because, I believe, the effect came before the cause. I hired a guy to mow my lawn. He mows the lawn for the majority of the homeowners in my area. Three days after he mowed my lawn, and I paid him, I hear him mowing my lawn again. I opened the door and called to him. He was in his sombrero hat as if he was already on vacation and I was funding it. I asked him, "why are you mowing my lawn again, you just mowed it 3 days ago?" He replied," "Well, I won't be back until after July 4th because I'm going on vacation, so I want to make sure the lawn is cut." Huhhhh????? Now you tell me, is this the most ridiculous excuse for cutting an already cut lawn? I guess people are that gullible that they would go for it, thinking that the grass won't grow because he cut it again. I said, "No thank you. Please don't cut my lawn." I'll wait for you to get back. He looked at me like I was from outer space.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was in his sombrero hat as if he was already on vacation.

This is the best thing I have read this week.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

I have only read one paragraph and I swear to all that's good and pure, if someone doesn't correct the word in bold below like right now there'll be hell to pay!

To whom it may concern:

It's been three months now!
Unacceptable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This is the best thing I have read this week.

He even had his sunglasses on as if he was already at the beach. All he needed was a pina colada in hand to finish the look.

[thedoc]

IBM - I Be Mad

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

To whom it may concern:

It's been three months now!
Unacceptable.

Stormlight, I've been really having a hard time with this. If I correct this mistake, it's going to cost me $250.00. The next sentence shows that it was a typo. So why are you so upset about this, and what do you think I should do?

[ChuckF]

Stormlight, Lessans meant to write Satin. Had he not meant to write Satin he would not have written Satin. I don't understand why this is not clear to you. You just need to give him a chance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He looked at me like I was from outer space.

Maybe he knows something we don't?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Stormlight, Lessans meant to write Satin. Had he not meant to write Satin he would not have written Satin. I don't understand why this is not clear to you. You just need to give him a chance.

Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and evil
compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God
responsible for all the good in the world and Satin responsible for the
evil while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be
reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as
an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried
desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing
line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes
a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in
human relations must come to a peaceful end.

[ChuckF]

Damn, that is some seriously bad writing. Did you say 7th grade?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stormlight, I've been really having a hard time with this. If I correct this mistake, it's going to cost me $250.00. The next sentence shows that it was a typo. So why are you so upset about this, and what do you think I should do?

It costs 250.00 to edit a typo on a .pdf file you have posted on somebody's forum?

SRSLY bad business model dude, take my advice and sell it as an eBook so you can make corrections and edits on the fly.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't dodge the question. I just didn't answer you with a yes or no because that would be a trap to make me look like a fundamentalist, or like someone who really isn't sure whether his claims are true. Either answer would have made it look like I'm in a losing position, which I'm not. And because I didn't answer you with a yes or no, which would have been a trap, you're still trapping me by accusing me of using a fake method to build credibility, which is also not true. I can't win, don't you see?

You did dodge the question, as in failed to answer it and answered some other question instead. I did not ask you what you believed about any of Lessans' specific claims. I asked you a more general question about your belief regarding the possibility that Lessans could have been wrong about something that he was positive he was correct about. Answering any other question than that one is dodging. Hedging your answer with multiple qualifications is also dodging. The problem, in short, is not that I didn't like the answer, but that the answer was not an answer to the question I asked.

You appear to consider any attempt to get you to provide a straight answer to a direct question as an effort to maneuver you into a trap. In other words, you consider the truth to be a trap. You are right about one thing, you can't win so long as you persist in this sort of disingenuous behavior.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specious, then you were missing the point. It wasn't about a particular company; it was about the technology that would allow this worldwide record keeping of everyone's standard of living just in case the person lost his job and needed the taxpayers support to live according to his standard living. You can change this company to any company you want. It doesn't matter which company is hired, as long as the company that is hired does the job it was hired to do.

peacegirl, I know you have reading comprehension problems, but honestly.

I said, "Of all the things I'd criticize this book for, it wouldn't be for using IBM as an example." Just because I found it amusing doesn't mean I was criticizing the choice. After all, IBM was a powerhouse in the 60s and 70s.

At least, I wouldn't criticize IBM's capability. It is amusing to think that IBM could be trusted to do such a job. That's why I suggested Microsoft as a modern replacement. Maybe Facebook could do it! Everybody trusts Facebook!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It costs 250.00 to edit a typo on a .pdf file you have posted on somebody's forum?

SRSLY bad business model dude, take my advice and sell it as an eBook so you can make corrections and edits on the fly.

LadyShea, the .pdf is the book in electronic form. I can't make any changes unless I pay for it. And the price went up from $50 to $250.00. Don't ask me why. I don't know that much about eBooks, but I'll guarantee you they'll charge you for any changes once the eBook is a finished product.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say that there is always a possibility that he could have been wrong (as possible as one plus one equals three).

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You do not believe that there is any possibility that Lessans could have been wrong regarding something about which he was positive that he was correct.

Is that your position?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice. No hedging, qualifications or obfuscation, please.

I am not going to answer in a yes or no. I am 100% positive he is right regarding determinism and the other two premises that lead to his first discovery. I also believe he was correct regarding efferent vision, but I won't say I'm positive until further evidence confirms his claim. And I'm sure he was correct regarding his third discovery on death, which was strictly based on astute observation and sound reasoning since, obviously, he hadn't died and collected empirical data. I'm sorry if you don't like my answer, but it's an honest one.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I believe you that it is honest, but it is not an answer. At least it is not an answer to the question that you were asked. Your refusal to actually answer the question is duly noted. Dodging direct questions is a tried and true method for building credibility, not!

I didn't dodge the question. I just didn't answer you with a yes or no because that would be a trap to make me look like a fundamentalist, or like someone who really isn't sure whether his claims are true. Either answer would have made it look like I'm in a losing position, which I'm not. And because I didn't answer you with a yes or no, which would have been a trap, you're still trapping me by accusing me of using a fake method to build credibility, which is also not true. I can't win, don't you see?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You did dodge the question, as in failed to answer it and answered some other question instead. I did not ask you what you believed about any of Lessans' specific claims. I asked you a more general question about your belief regarding the possibility that Lessans could have been wrong about something that he was positive he was correct about. Answering any other question than that one is dodging. Hedging your answer with multiple qualifications is also dodging. The problem, in short, is not that I didn't like the answer, but that the answer was not an answer to the question I asked.

I understand the question you asked, and for the sake of clarity, I didn't dodge it purposely. I just think your question was a trap because any answer I gave would and could be used against me.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You appear to consider any attempt to get you to provide a straight answer to a direct question as an effort to maneuver you into a trap. In other words, you consider the truth to be a trap. You are right about one thing, you can't win so long as you persist in this sort of disingenuous behavior.

Let's try again: I believe there is a possibility that Lessans could have been wrong regarding something about which he was positive that he was correct, but not in reference to his three discoveries.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, the .pdf is the book in electronic form. I can't make any changes unless I pay for it. And the price went up from $50 to $250.00. Don't ask me why. I don't know that much about eBooks, but I'll guarantee you they'll charge you for any changes once the eBook is a finished product.

You can't edit your own .pdf? All you need is a program that saves in .pdf format and you can update it at will.

Open Office is a free open source program that allows you to save your documents as .pdf. You can do it all yourself. Did you even ask anyone for basic business advice? For 50.00 you could have put up your own commerce site and been selling the book all along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

peacegirl, I know you have reading comprehension problems, but honestly.

I said, "Of all the things I'd criticize this book for, it wouldn't be for using IBM as an example." Just because I found it amusing doesn't mean I was criticizing the choice. After all, IBM was a powerhouse in the 60s and 70s.

At least, I wouldn't criticize IBM's capability. It is amusing to think that IBM could be trusted to do such a job. That's why I suggested Microsoft as a modern replacement. Maybe Facebook could do it! Everybody trusts Facebook!

Facebook is a social network, not a computer networking company. I found a list of the top companies. There is absolutely no reason the economic system could not get off the ground because we have the technological ability in which to do so. Maybe I'll use of these names instead. LadyShea, what do you think?

Computer networking Companies; List of Top Computer networking Firms

[Crumb]

I think someone is ripping you off.