A revolution in thought - Page 277

thedoc · #**6901** 06-22-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why don't you keep your mouth #*$( for a change doc, instead of looking like a total idiot?

Starting to get more abusive now, must be realizing how wrong you have been with such an untenable position and hypothesis to support. Frustration with an erroneous, unsupported cause, it will be interesting to see where it goes now.

I must agree with Augakuk, to a point Peacegirl has provided some diversion, and has been an interesting specimen. I would really be interested in the opinion of a Professional Psychiatrist, there is surely enough material in this thread alone for an accurate diagnosis of her afliction.

Will we make 300 before she totally looses it?

peacegirl · #**6902** 06-22-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why don't you keep your mouth #*$( for a change doc, instead of looking like a total idiot?

Starting to get more abusive now, must be realizing how wrong you have been with such an untenable position and hypothesis to support. Frustration with an erroneous, unsupported cause, it will be interesting to see where it goes now.

I am not abusive, you all are. You are forcing me to respond this way. Don't try to get off the hook of what is your responsibility in all of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

I must agree with Augakuk, to a point Peacegirl has provided some diversion, and has been an interesting specimen. I would really be interested in the opinion of a Professional Psychiatrist, there is surely enough material in this thread alone for an accurate diagnosis of her afliction.

Will we make 300 before she totally looses it?

A specimen? Do you think you're Nietzsche now? Who do you think you are to argue about something you know nothing about? This is called ignorance of the worst kind, because you are acting like you know, when you know absolutely nothing. You have no idea what this book is about, yet you yap and yap like a blathering idiot. I"m responding this way because you are taking advantage of my niceness. I will fight back, "an eye for an eye" now, because you are interpreting my kindness as weakness.

Do you know how many Psychiatrists need their heads examined? Do you seriously think that a diagnosis from a psychiatrist proves anything? They are the most narcissistic group of people on the planet, out to make tons of money at the expense of the public.

Ninety-nine percent of what psychiatry treats are
words and the increase in mental patients can be easily traced to
psychiatrists themselves who have unconsciously multiplied the heads
of this diseased hydra by tacitly blaming the possibility of mental
illness, which justified and drove many to consider themselves in need
of what must have come into existence for their welfare. They start
out with the assumption that their patient will not get well unless he
does what they prescribe and though in years gone by they used
themselves as guinea pigs to test the reaction of a new drug so that
they could be of help to their patient, today they are afraid to find out
what would happen if they didn’t prescribe 90% of the medicines in
constant use.

Isn’t it possible that the patient would have gotten well
without the medicine — or is this the actual cause of returning
health? Supposing the drug is actually harmful to the body when
taken often enough over so many years and instead of the patient
getting better he gets worse because of it and then after doctors have
nearly killed him he gets better in spite of it? And what if he develops
long term side-effects; the doctor must then justify his therapy on the
grounds that the patient would have been much worse off had he not
taken the drug. The following passage is an attempt to expose the
corruption that has gone rampant in a world of phantom diseases,
patient abuse, and illegal kickbacks.

In his book “Insane Psychiatry: A Profession Run Amok,” Nicholas
Regush states, February 16, 2002 — “There is no drug that can cure
modern psychiatry. This is a profession that is close to routinely
practicing medical terrorism by shamelessly over-prescribing drugs to
people of all ages, often for phantom diseases and for purposes that have
no rational basis in science. What’s needed is something akin to a War
Crimes Tribunal to investigate psychiatry’s relationship to major
pharmaceutical companies. Haul all the big product champions and
psychiatry associations in and determine their involvement with moneygrubbing
schemes and the abuse of patients. And let me re-emphasize
this point: this is a medical specialty that is second to none in ripping off
and abusing patients. It is no longer a matter of a few bad apples
screwing everyone left and right. It’s become a full-scale assault on
humanity.”

“Many articles written by psychiatrists exaggerate the role of
psychopathology, plug disproved theories and perpetuate myths. The
situation has long been out-of-control. A non-disease that was once
attributed to errant brain chemistry is disproved over and over again.
Perhaps many drugs will be seen as just another toxic chemical that was
added to the bodies of unsuspecting individuals in an attempt to put a lid
on behaviors that were not deemed ‘appropriate.’ Obviously, the drug
companies aren’t going to change things. It is up to the general public to
step into the fray; get involved, stand up and be counted. The drug
companies aren’t going to do it. They’re busy estimating the size of their
potential markets. They’re building their chemical pipelines into the minds
and bodies of the young. Every great revolution starts with a foothold.”

Guylaine Lanctot, a M.D., the author of “The Medical Mafia: How
To Get Out of It Alive and Take Back Our Health” has this to say:
“The medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals
whose main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an
epidemic of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to
achieve this, anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the
principal salespeople of the drug companies. They are rewarded with
research grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the
public — from infants to the elderly — who MUST be thoroughly
medicated and vaccinated, at any cost! They cannot patent natural
remedies. That is why they push synthetics. They control medicine, and
that is why they are able to tell medical schools what they can and cannot
teach. Not surprisingly, the number of people having in-hospital, adverse
drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is in the millions.”

Vivisectus · #**6903** 06-22-2011, 03:30 PM

There is another way to show that what we see is light, and that sight is not efferent and instant.

When we observe a star with, say, a light-detector, then we take the time it had to travel into account when we try to plot where this star actually is. The reason for this is that both we and the star have moved considerably in the many years it took for the light to reach us.

So what we detect with a light-detector is different from the actual position of the star relative to us.

If the computer-screen in front of you represents the night sky, and the middle is where we detect the light of a star with a light-detector, then the actual position of the star as we speak is probably closer to the edge, depending on how quickly it is moving relative to us.

So why do we see the star in the same position as we measure it with light-sensors such as are used in digital cameras? Logically, we should see the star in the actual position, but record the light in a different position if instant efferent sight is real.

We know that stars move a LOT relative to us in 800 years. So how come we detect the light and see the image in the same place?

Vivisectus · #**6904** 06-22-2011, 03:30 PM

feh doubled again

peacegirl · #**6905** 06-22-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is another way to show that what we see is light, and that sight is not efferent and instant.

When we observe a star with, say, a light-detector, then we take the time it had to travel into account when we try to plot where this star actually is. The reason for this is that both we and the star have moved considerably in the many years it took for the light to reach us.

So what we detect with a light-detector is different from the actual position of the star relative to us.

If the computer-screen in front of you represents the night sky, and the middle is where we detect the light of a star with a light-detector, then the actual position of the star as we speak is probably closer to the edge, depending on how quickly it is moving relative to us.

So why do we see the star in the same position as we measure it with light-sensors such as are used in digital cameras? Logically, we should see the star in the actual position, but record the light in a different position if instant efferent sight is real.

We know that stars move a LOT relative to us in 800 years. So how come we detect the light and see the image in the same place?

How do we know stars move a LOT? Where's the proof of this? Maybe there is proof, but you didn't show me.

Vivisectus · #**6906** 06-22-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is another way to show that what we see is light, and that sight is not efferent and instant.

When we observe a star with, say, a light-detector, then we take the time it had to travel into account when we try to plot where this star actually is. The reason for this is that both we and the star have moved considerably in the many years it took for the light to reach us.

So what we detect with a light-detector is different from the actual position of the star relative to us.

If the computer-screen in front of you represents the night sky, and the middle is where we detect the light of a star with a light-detector, then the actual position of the star as we speak is probably closer to the edge, depending on how quickly it is moving relative to us.

So why do we see the star in the same position as we measure it with light-sensors such as are used in digital cameras? Logically, we should see the star in the actual position, but record the light in a different position if instant efferent sight is real.

We know that stars move a LOT relative to us in 800 years. So how come we detect the light and see the image in the same place?

How do we know stars move a LOT? Where's the proof of this? Maybe there is proof, but you didn't show me.

Well, we can see them move across the skies as times passes. The night sky we see now is very different from that 500 years ago, for instance.

So we know that the stars move, and that their position relative to us changes significantly over time.

So how come the light and the image come from the same position? If efferent sight is correct there should be a difference - especially stars that are over 500 lightyears away.

peacegirl · #**6907** 06-22-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is another way to show that what we see is light, and that sight is not efferent and instant.

When we observe a star with, say, a light-detector, then we take the time it had to travel into account when we try to plot where this star actually is. The reason for this is that both we and the star have moved considerably in the many years it took for the light to reach us.

So what we detect with a light-detector is different from the actual position of the star relative to us.

If the computer-screen in front of you represents the night sky, and the middle is where we detect the light of a star with a light-detector, then the actual position of the star as we speak is probably closer to the edge, depending on how quickly it is moving relative to us.

So why do we see the star in the same position as we measure it with light-sensors such as are used in digital cameras? Logically, we should see the star in the actual position, but record the light in a different position if instant efferent sight is real.

We know that stars move a LOT relative to us in 800 years. So how come we detect the light and see the image in the same place?

How do we know stars move a LOT? Where's the proof of this? Maybe there is proof, but you didn't show me.

Well, we can see them move across the skies as times passes. The night sky we see now is very different from that 500 years ago, for instance.

So we know that the stars move, and that their position relative to us changes significantly over time.

So how come the light and the image come from the same position? If efferent sight is correct there should be a difference - especially stars that are over 500 lightyears away.

The light coming from the image would show up in the same position regardless of where the star was in the sky because the light appears regardless of where the star is in the night sky. Remember, we're talking about two different things here. The first is that we are getting information from the light itself. It has traveled a finite distance and is showing up here on Earth through a camera, or some other means. The other is seeing the image directly. I believe the two are mutually exclusive.

Vivisectus · #**6908** 06-22-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is another way to show that what we see is light, and that sight is not efferent and instant.

When we observe a star with, say, a light-detector, then we take the time it had to travel into account when we try to plot where this star actually is. The reason for this is that both we and the star have moved considerably in the many years it took for the light to reach us.

So what we detect with a light-detector is different from the actual position of the star relative to us.

If the computer-screen in front of you represents the night sky, and the middle is where we detect the light of a star with a light-detector, then the actual position of the star as we speak is probably closer to the edge, depending on how quickly it is moving relative to us.

So why do we see the star in the same position as we measure it with light-sensors such as are used in digital cameras? Logically, we should see the star in the actual position, but record the light in a different position if instant efferent sight is real.

We know that stars move a LOT relative to us in 800 years. So how come we detect the light and see the image in the same place?

How do we know stars move a LOT? Where's the proof of this? Maybe there is proof, but you didn't show me.

Well, we can see them move across the skies as times passes. The night sky we see now is very different from that 500 years ago, for instance.

So we know that the stars move, and that their position relative to us changes significantly over time.

So how come the light and the image come from the same position? If efferent sight is correct there should be a difference - especially stars that are over 500 lightyears away.

The light coming from the image would show up in the same position regardless of where the star was in the sky because the light appears regardless of where the star is in the night sky. Remember, we're talking about two different things here. The first is that we are getting information from the light itself. It has traveled a finite distance and is showing up here on Earth through a camera, or some other means. The other is seeing the image directly. I believe the two are mutually exclusive.

That statement makes no sense to me... what are you trying to say?

Vivisectus · #**6909** 06-22-2011, 04:43 PM

Incidentally, you have just quoted an AIDS denialist and a vaccine conspiracy theorist to support your point of view. Do you believe that vaccines cause autism and are one of the many drugs that are simply sold to keep us ill so people can make money off them, and that AIDS is not caused by HIV but by anti-HIV drugs?

thedoc · #**6910** 06-22-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A specimen? . I will fight back,

More true colors, and useing the book to prove the validity of the book? I believe there is a term for that, and probably several terms for Peacegirl.

Peacegirl, have you been keeping up with your med's, very important for you.

LadyShea · #**6911** 06-22-2011, 05:12 PM

Guylaine Lanctot lost her medical license due to her quackery
Nicholas Regush was a journalist, not a scientist, so I am unsure why his opinion should carry any weight

Not that there aren't valid criticisms of all areas of medicine, including psychiatry, but quoting discredited Spooky Mulders and dead reporters isn't the best way to open that discussion.

Also, that passage appears to be another one of your personal add-ons to your fathers book, just like the Milton quote. Did you do any vetting of your sources at all before using them? Do you think citing such people lends credibility to the book?

LadyShea · #**6912** 06-22-2011, 05:34 PM

You lifted a whole page of quotes (Decline and Fall, pages 288-299) wholesale from the web and didn't even change the order! You deleted a few is the only change you made. Of course the sites also plagiarized each other, but I wonder did you credit the site you used anywhere in the book? I don't see a foot note.

Alternative Health Magazine - Natural Healing Today
Issue 73: 16 Quotes on Drugs at Newsletter Archive (MessageID: 67449)
LifeForce - Body Balance - Liquid Vitamins

ChuckF · #**6913** 06-22-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You lifted a whole page of quotes (Decline and Fall, pages 288-299) wholesale from the web and didn't even change the order! You deleted a few is the only change you made. Of course the sites also plagiarized each other, but I wonder did you credit the site you used anywhere in the book? I don't see a foot note.

http://www.naturalhealingtoday.com/a..._on_drugs.html
Issue 73: 16 Quotes on Drugs at Newsletter Archive (MessageID: 67449)
LifeForce - Body Balance - Liquid Vitamins

loooooool

LadyShea · #**6914** 06-22-2011, 05:48 PM

Also note none of the quotes are sourced/cited. They could have been made up completely for all we know.

Sloppy scholarship from the world of woo and quackery, surprising!

peacegirl · #**6915** 06-22-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is another way to show that what we see is light, and that sight is not efferent and instant.

When we observe a star with, say, a light-detector, then we take the time it had to travel into account when we try to plot where this star actually is. The reason for this is that both we and the star have moved considerably in the many years it took for the light to reach us.

So what we detect with a light-detector is different from the actual position of the star relative to us.

If the computer-screen in front of you represents the night sky, and the middle is where we detect the light of a star with a light-detector, then the actual position of the star as we speak is probably closer to the edge, depending on how quickly it is moving relative to us.

So why do we see the star in the same position as we measure it with light-sensors such as are used in digital cameras? Logically, we should see the star in the actual position, but record the light in a different position if instant efferent sight is real.

We know that stars move a LOT relative to us in 800 years. So how come we detect the light and see the image in the same place?

How do we know stars move a LOT? Where's the proof of this? Maybe there is proof, but you didn't show me.

Well, we can see them move across the skies as times passes. The night sky we see now is very different from that 500 years ago, for instance.

So we know that the stars move, and that their position relative to us changes significantly over time.

So how come the light and the image come from the same position? If efferent sight is correct there should be a difference - especially stars that are over 500 lightyears away.

The light coming from the image would show up in the same position regardless of where the star was in the sky because the light appears regardless of where the star is in the night sky. Remember, we're talking about two different things here. The first is that we are getting information from the light itself. It has traveled a finite distance and is showing up here on Earth through a camera, or some other means. The other is seeing the image directly. I believe the two are mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That statement makes no sense to me... what are you trying to say?

I never said it wasn't possible to detect light that is being emitted from matter (a star). So it makes sense that a light detector would be able to pick up light coming from that light source. The digital camera would be able to take a picture of the star (not the light), as long as the star is in the camera's field of view. I don't know if this answers your question. Maybe the measurements as to where the star would actually be is off, because no image is coming from the light itself.

ChuckF · #**6916** 06-22-2011, 05:58 PM

peacegirl, are you in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed? I refer specifically to items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, as well as provisions for indemnification and remedy. Did you, in publishing this work, enter into a contractual agreement containing those provisions or substantively equivalent provisions? Did you truthfully represent yourself and this work to the other party?

Stephen Maturin · #**6917** 06-22-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

world of woo

brb off to create a new MMORPG

:brb:

peacegirl · #**6918** 06-22-2011, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You lifted a whole page of quotes (Decline and Fall, pages 288-299) wholesale from the web and didn't even change the order! You deleted a few is the only change you made. Of course the sites also plagiarized each other, but I wonder did you credit the site you used anywhere in the book? I don't see a foot note.

http://www.naturalhealingtoday.com/a..._on_drugs.html
Issue 73: 16 Quotes on Drugs at Newsletter Archive (MessageID: 67449)
LifeForce - Body Balance - Liquid Vitamins

loooooool

I didn't because there was no original source. I gave credit to people where I could. Whether you agree or not, there is a lot of quackery in medicine. It's very easy to label someone as sick, and then from there it's as easy as one, two, three to make it appear as if this person is in need of treatment, which can make matters worse, not better.

peacegirl · #**6919** 06-22-2011, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, are you in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed? I refer specifically to items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, as well as provisions for indemnification and remedy. Did you, in publishing this work, enter into a contractual agreement containing those provisions or substantively equivalent provisions? Did you truthfully represent yourself and this work to the other party?

There was no other party. It was a sentence or two. Wherever I could, I named the authors. I didn't misrepresent anyone. I wrote in the beginning of the book that I added some examples to support the concept being discussed. I didn't breach any copyright laws. I didn't plagarize by taking portions out of another book and claim it was mine. If you still want to use this against me and throw me out, so be it. It would give me a way out of this thread.

peacegirl · #**6920** 06-22-2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Guylaine Lanctot lost her medical license due to her quackery
Nicholas Regush was a journalist, not a scientist, so I am unsure why his opinion should carry any weight

Not that there aren't valid criticisms of all areas of medicine, including psychiatry, but quoting discredited Spooky Mulders and dead reporters isn't the best way to open that discussion.

Also, that passage appears to be another one of your personal add-ons to your fathers book, just like the Milton quote. Did you do any vetting of your sources at all before using them? Do you think citing such people lends credibility to the book?

I know exactly where I added parts to the book. I don't care if someone is dead or not. I added those few paragraphs because I believed they supported the concept under discussion. There are other books that aren't as dated, but I have always given credit where possible. I also tried to be a good steward of my father's work and not change the concept unintentionally. To alter the meaning in any way would not be good stewardship. It also wouldn't be ethical, because this book isn't mine.

ChuckF · #**6921** 06-22-2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, are you in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed? I refer specifically to items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, as well as provisions for indemnification and remedy. Did you, in publishing this work, enter into a contractual agreement containing those provisions or substantively equivalent provisions? Did you truthfully represent yourself and this work to the other party?

There was no other party. It was a sentence or two. Wherever I could, I named the authors. I didn't misrepresent anyone. I wrote in the beginning of the book that I added some examples, which I did. I didn't breach any copyright laws. If you want to use this against me and throw me out, so be it. It would give me a way out of this thread.

The other party here is Trafford Publishing. That is the party with whom you concluded the contract to publish this work, portions of which appear to be plagiarized.

Can you not say whether you are in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed?

I accept that you may believe that you broke no copyright laws in holding out plagiarized content as your own when concluding a contract for publishing on demand, and undertaking to market the resultant product.

If you are confident that you are not in breach of legal duties arising from the warranties and representations you made as part of your contractual obligations to Trafford, then I assume you will have no objection if I send a brief e-mail to their legal department, indicating a few of the items LadyShea has identified. Would I be correct so to assume?

peacegirl · #**6922** 06-22-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, are you in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed? I refer specifically to items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, as well as provisions for indemnification and remedy. Did you, in publishing this work, enter into a contractual agreement containing those provisions or substantively equivalent provisions? Did you truthfully represent yourself and this work to the other party?

There was no other party. It was a sentence or two. Wherever I could, I named the authors. I didn't misrepresent anyone. I wrote in the beginning of the book that I added some examples, which I did. I didn't breach any copyright laws. If you want to use this against me and throw me out, so be it. It would give me a way out of this thread.

The other party here is Trafford Publishing. That is the party with whom you concluded the contract to publish this work, portions of which appear to be plagiarized.

Can you not say whether you are in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed?

I accept that you may believe that you broke no copyright laws in holding out plagiarized content as your own when concluding a contract for publishing on demand, and undertaking to market the resultant product.

If you are confident that you are not in breach of legal duties arising from the warranties and representations you made as part of your contractual obligations to Trafford, then I assume you will have no objection if I send a brief e-mail to their legal department, indicating a few of the items LadyShea has identified. Would I be correct so to assume?

Do whatever you feel the need to do.

Stephen Maturin · #**6923** 06-22-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, are you in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed?

I wonder what Trafford's in-house counsel will have to say about that.

Doctor X · #**6924** 06-22-2011, 06:29 PM

"Your work is both good and original. Unfortunately, that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good."

--Samuel Johnson

--J.D.

ChuckF · #**6925** 06-22-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, are you in breach of legal duties arising from the terms and conditions (PDF) to which you presumably agreed?

I wonder what Trafford's in-house counsel will have to say about that.

I, too, wonder about this, counselor! In situations like this, I find it helpful to think about what I might consider, were I in-house counsel for Trafford. For example, how confident am I than an indemnification clause will insulate the company from liability associated with intellectual property claims? Is it well-settled law that a publisher - even an on-demand publisher - cannot be held liable for the publication of plagiarized material? What about for facilitating its distribution and marketing? Am I sure? How much would the company lose in revenue were it to exercise its discretion to terminate the agreement and retain fees already paid? These are a few of the things I might think about.