A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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?

They are add ons, but what bothers me is that you are judging these people so harshly just because they aren't respected in the medical community. That doesn't mean as much to me as whether their opinions hold any weight based on data, of all things.

I added those few paragraphs because I believed they supported the concept under discussion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My question was did you consider the sources and their reputations and what that might mean to the acceptance of the final work? I could probably find quotes of say Hitler's or Stalin's or whomever that could support a point I was trying to make, but I wouldn't use them because that would be stupid.

I didn't consider that. I just thought the comments were good examples, that's all. I think you're blowing this way out of proportion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3 different quotes you've used now are from less than reputable or authoritative sources, do you think that might hurt Lessan's credibility?

Not if the concept is thoroughly understood. These comments were just examples to clarify the point that was being made. In and of themselves, they don't mean much.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they were so concerned about being sued, why didn't they make this more clear?

It's not their fault if you didn't read the contract and didn't realize that, you know, they would expect you to follow the law.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a sentence or two from a comment. It's a whole page, of possibly false or incorrectly attributed quotes, in the same order as found on three different websites. I found the same list of quotes elsewhere as well.

As I said, those sites plagiarized from each other obviously, but as they are woo and quack sites I am not surprised.

What surprises me is that you copied and pasted them into the book and didn't even bother to check if they were correctly attributed, didn't look for citations as to when and in what context the quotes were made, nor in any way research or verify them. They supported your position, you used them...that's sloppy.

I thought the quotes spoke for themselves. I gave credit to the source of those quotes as well. Of course the names could have been wrong, but I wasn't going to spend enormous amounts of time trying to verify this information. If it was wrong, I would fix it in the next printing, but I still think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. That being said, I would never purposely plagiarize anyone. I wouldn't like them doing that to me. I know how that feels because my trademarked name "See-More" was being used by another company that got registered using a different logo.

[davidm]

Peacegirl, do cameras take pictures in real time or delayed time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

It's not their fault if you didn't read the contract and didn't realize that, you know, they would expect you to follow the law.

To tell you the truth, I don't remember a long drawn out contract that required lawyers. Basically, you have the right to your book. You pay them up front, and they do a service for you. You can cancel at any time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, do cameras take pictures in real time or delayed time?

Are we back here again? Cameras use the light to take a picture, but the object or light source has to be within the eye of the camera. The camera cannot take a picture of just light, and that's the implication.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are we back here again? Cameras use the light to take a picture, but the object or light source has to be within the eye of the camera. The camera cannot take a picture of just light, and that's the implication.

The object has to be within the the eye of the camera! No shit! Now tell us: Does the camera take the picture in real time, or in delayed time?

[LadyShea]

They aren't mountains out of molehills to me, and they shouldn't be to you. They indicate to any discerning reader that the author is sloppy and half-assed and the piece is poorly researched and poorly edited at best, riddled with factual errors at worst.

[LadyShea]

Copying off the internet is the same as copying from a book. Fair use rules apply, but since your quotes follow the same order, and also fail to be properly cited, you would have a hard time proving you didn't copy/paste off one of the sites I listed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Your denials that it is relevant do not make it so.

It is relevant, because the theory of relativity - which has multitudes of evidence supporting it and is a very important part of modern physics - entails that information cannot travel faster than light.

If an observer on Rigel can look through a telescope and see me, and learn things about me (such as my location, species, coloration, etc.) almost as they are happening (with the only delay being the time it takes their brain to process what they are seeing), then that means that the observer has learned information, and done so almost 800 years before the light that reflects off of me would reach Rigel.

That is very relevant to your daddy's theories of vision, and your attempts to deny that it is only make you look like a lying weasel.

So answer those four simple questions, or admit that you're in a paradox, or explain why Einstein's theory of relativity, and all the evidence backing it up, should be abandoned so that you can accommodate your dad's ignorant* theories of sight.

*This is not an insult, it is simply a statement of fact. You are ignorant on this issue because you have yourself admitted that you have not studied the structure of the eye or modern physics in any depth, and I'm assuming that your father was not a scholar of eye anatomy or modern physics either.

I have no problem admitting I am ignorant about certain subjects, but, as I said, my father came to this knowledge indirectly. It's not necessary that we argue over this any more. The proof will come out one way or the other, when more tests are done.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem admitting I am ignorant about certain subjects, but, as I said, my father came to this knowledge indirectly. It's not necessary that we argue over this any more. The proof will come out one way or the other, when more tests are done.

Sorry, but you will continually be asked to explain this stuff over and over and over. Because your "explanations" so far have been either non-existent, incoherent, or laughably incorrect (hence non-explanatory).

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem admitting I am ignorant about certain subjects, but, as I said, my father came to this knowledge indirectly. It's not necessary that we argue over this any more. The proof will come out one way or the other, when more tests are done.

The tests have been done. You are wrong.

Your refusal to answer four simple questions shows that you know you can't honestly answer them in a way that makes sense and fits with your dad's ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Firstly, it would be a frivolous lawsuit because I didn't copy something that was intellectual property. It wasn't in a book; it was a comment in the public domain.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

As LadyShea points out, it wasn't just "a comment" that you lifted.

They were quotations with the names of the people who made the quotes.

[quoe="Stephen Maturin"]More important for present purposes, you're a layperson spouting conclusions based on a five-minute Google search. Trafford's in-house attorneys, who in all likelihood are well versed in the ins and outs of intellectual property law, might disagree.[/quote]

Then they should have made it very clear, or they should have read the book themselves. But because I own the rights, I don't think they are liable. All they are, are glorified printers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Secondly, I don't think my father would have gone through with a true lawsuit. He was bluffing to try to get the President to pay attention.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Per your father's own words, he filed a formal complaint -- the document one files to commence a civil action -- against the President in a federal court. That's the opposite of a bluff; that's as real as it gets. In a sense it wasn't a "true lawsuit" because it was utterly bereft of merit, but it most assuredly wasn't a "bluff."

The lawsuit was real, but all he wanted was the notoriety so he could bring his discovery to light. He was upset because he knew war did not have to continue, yet no one would listen, and they still aren't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thirdly, it is a fact (not a tenuous assumption) that I don't have very much money. I would need a public defender.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There are no public defenders in civil litigation. You might be able to find private counsel willing to defend you pro bono, but there's no guarantee. In any event, your lack of funds is all the more reason for Trafford to walk away from all this nonsense.

I didn't know that. Why should they walk away if I'm not committing true copyright infringement. There's a lot of money to be made.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Were I their in-house counsel, it would be a fairly easy decision to terminate our relationship on the basis of your misrepresentations. Your book produces no revenue because it is drivel, and the smallest exposure to liability makes it a poor investment once the up-front fees are collected.

Absolutely. Such decisions are often close calls, but this one easy to the point of being a no-brainer. The chances of actual litigation may well be very low,* but any risk is arguably too high in a zero-return situation such as this.

*Or not. Nutjob woo peddlers sometimes make the most aggressive litigators.[/QUOTE]

I have learned to be more careful. Thanks everyone!

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then they should have made it very clear, or they should have read the book themselves. But because I own the rights, I don't think they are liable. All they are, are glorified printers.

I am not a lawyer, but...

As in most distribution situations (such as YouTube) they do not pre-approve all the media they distribute. But they DO expect you to follow the law, and part of your contract, or Terms of Service, is that you will not be violating copyright.

But just because you can upload a copyrighted TV show on YouTube and they will not review what you've uploaded before it becomes available does not mean that it's not a violation of their terms of service. They will take it down when they become aware of it, and repeat violators will be banned.

I am assuming that your publisher has a similar expectation. They expect you to follow copyright, but if they become aware of copyright infringement, they will choose to remove it.

I didn't know that. Why should they walk away if I'm not committing true copyright infringement.

Because they would hope to get you to pay for the copyright infringement, however, if you have no money to defend yourself or to pay damages, instead the publisher will be targeted for that money, and they may be the ones who have to pay.

There's a lot of money to be made.

No.

No, there isn't.

[Vivisectus]

So to recap:

You think that aids-denialists are more plausible than other researchers. These aids-denialists share a trait with you and your father: their ideas are almost universally rejected and gainsaid by just about every test that has been done, a fact they are contesting not on positive evidence in favor of their position, but on a VERY small possibility that the evidence in favor of the competing idea may or may not be flawed. In other words, they are arguing their case on the basis that you could possibly have a very small amount of doubt about the dominant theory: not on the basis of any strong evidence for their own competing theory.

You think that quack conspiracy theorists are more plausible than the majority of researchers. They also share a trait with you and your father: they are gainsaid by just about every test that is ever done. They contest this on the grounds that they claim the tests are either biased or unfair, and that the testers have an ulterior motive, something which they have yet to conclusively show, while at the same time completely failing to provide conclusive tests to prove their own ideas are valid.

At the same time, we have designed cameras thinking that what we were doing was copying the human eye - a receptor reacts to light, and depending on what color light hits it in what particular brightness, it sends an electric signal to the memory bank of the system and this creates an image. But what we were really doing is designing a technology that works completely in reverse - the camera somehow reaches out and captures the image without anything to carry the signal, and through some unexplained mechanism it then appears exactly as we would see it?

Also, this unexplained mechanism will display images in exactly the same spot as the light that is being emitted by the object, even though that object has moved a LOT in the many years it took for the light to reach us?

All this we are asked to accept because a man said it was so, a man who presented to evidence, no mechanism by which this opposing idea would work, who showed no observations that cannot be explained in the current framework, and who provided no logical, empirical or other reason to believe that he was right, except for his own say-so?

And to you this seems reasonable - nay, more! opposition to the idea that this is correct seems unreasonable to you?

Honestly - is that your considered position? Can you say in all honesty that you cling to this idea for any other than emotional reasons? These ideas may have been your dads obsession, but they are not him - you do not reject him by rejecting these ideas. It is perfectly OK for him to be have been a bit obsessed and, well, wrong about them. The intention was good - surely that can be enough? Surely there is enough of a rational you there to see that this is just insane?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
There's a lot of money to be made.

True intentions are coming out.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

True intentions are coming out.

Sure, of course she is trying to make money off this. Why else would she be selling it?

And of course, because she sees this as a meal ticket, she has no interest whatsoever in whether what's in the book is TRUE or not; it has to be true, because that way people will buy it! If it's NOT true, just pretend it is!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't imagine borrowing a few sentences in an informal conversation that I found particularly noteworthy, would be considered copyright infringement. But maybe I'm wrong.

The capacity of your imagination irrelevant.

I could only prove if I wasn't actually breaching copyright, but if I was I'd have to pay for damages, if there were any. Maybe the rules have gotten tougher since the advent of the internet.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I said I really don't know, but I know on thing for sure. I didn't copy anything out of a book without giving credit to the author.

I don't know why you keep repeating "out of a book" as though it has some talismanic power to protect you from the consequences of your theft of intellectual property.

If they were so concerned about being sued, why didn't they make this more clear?

They put it in plain English in the terms of service to which you agreed. Right there in item 2.1. "You represent that (i) you are the sole copyright owner of the Work and all of its content." You consented to be legally bound by the terms of that document. Did you misrepresent yourself as the sole copyright owner of all of the content of the work, including the portions that you plagiarized?

They leave everything up to the author.

No, they don't. They do not leave the theft of intellectual property "up to the author." It is specifically proscribed in the contractual agreement binding author and publisher. Did you not read the document before consenting to be bound by it?

You seem really angry.

Maybe I don't like thieves?

I never said I was a lawyer,

You don't have to be a lawyer. You just have to be not a liar.

and I never misrepresented who I am, at least not intentionally.

I never said that you misrepresented who you were. I suspected you misrepresented your little book to your publishers though, who reasonably relied upon your knowing misrepresentation.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then they should have made it very clear,

It is clearly written in plain English in the terms to which you agreed.

or they should have read the book themselves.

You should have thought of this before you misrepresented yourself to them.

But because I own the rights, I don't think they are liable.

Their counsel would be well-advised not to rely on your legal opinions, because you are completely uninformed.

All they are, are glorified printers.

I suspect even a mediocre intellectual property attorney could convince a court to disagree with you. For example, from a page you should have read more carefully:

You submit your manuscript to us and we work with you to format it and design the cover. The completed file is stored digitally. Your book is then added to our online bookstore as well as other popular booksellers like Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com. When someone places an order for a copy, we print and ship it out, and you receive a percentage of the retail price.

It's easy to make the case that they are a lot more than a glorified printer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lawsuit was real, but all he wanted was the notoriety so he could bring his discovery to light. He was upset because he knew war did not have to continue, yet no one would listen, and they still aren't.

Your father failed to achieve notoriety and merely wasted the court's time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't know that. Why should they walk away if I'm not committing true copyright infringement. There's a lot of money to be made.

There is precisely no money to be made once they have extracted whatever fees they can from you. They should walk away to avoid any exposure to liability arising from your plagiarism.

I have learned to be more careful. Thanks everyone!

Work on learning not to steal.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You don't know what you're talking about.

Seven words that pretty much cover this entire thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They aren't mountains out of molehills to me, and they shouldn't be to you. They indicate to any discerning reader that the author is sloppy and half-assed and the piece is poorly researched and poorly edited at best, riddled with factual errors at worst.

I agree with you if the main concept is sloppy. I don't think it is. I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are getting off onto an unnecessary tangent that could ruin it for you because you are once again judging the book's validity by who wrote these quotes. I did the best I could, and with good intentions. All I have gotten here is criticism, although I do thank you for pointing certain things out to me. But enough is enough, don't you agree?

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A camera works by light sensitive chemicals or receptors. They detect light, and turn that into a picture. Camera's send nothing out - they simply record light. Are you adding efferent camera's to the long list of impossible things to prop us this crackpot idea?

Never ever did I say the camera sends something out. That's the most absurd thing I've heard yet.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thus - since camera's most definitely need light to hit their receptors, why do we not see stars somewhere else than we see them with camera's?

So you're telling me that a camera is taking a picture of a star just from delayed light? How can you take a picture of lightwaves only? You need the light source. Something doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also - you swallow this book full of unsupported twaddle hook, line and sinker - but medicine you are highly skeptical of? Vaccines concern you? Medical conspiracies seem plausible to you? Let me guess - natural and alternative remedies are repressed by big pharma?

You are putting words in my mouth. I am definitely skeptical of medicine due to the fact that it's disease oriented, surgery oriented, and medicine oriented. I am not saying there isn't a place for medicine, especially when someone absolutely needs what medicine provides. I just don't believe that we need to be taking all these meds, and I do question the motives of all those who have a personal stake in what they're selling you. People are not always honest with their patients or with themselves when money is the issue. I am a critical thinker and a skeptic. I think complementary medicine is being accepted by the mainstream. Isn't the hippocratic oath, "First do no harm?" Chiropracters, for example, are on many insurance plans. Why not try things that are less invasive, before going to the treatments that have a higher chance of side effects? I think that's rational thinking.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am telling you - we need to tap into the awesome power of stupid. Look at what it can do! Just find something people WANT to believe, and stand back and watch what they will convince themselves of.

So wrong Vivisectus. I think you are doing everything you can to convince yourself that I'm gullible. But I'm really not. I weigh my options very carefully, and I don't think there is anything stupid about being cautious and trying something that cannot harm, and could possibly help, then taking potentially dangerous medicines, and getting cut open in surgery as a first line of defense.

[Vivisectus]

Never ever did I say the camera sends something out. That's the most absurd thing I've heard yet.

I agree! What happens is that the camera records light - the color and intensity of it. So we are agreed that a camera records light that comes in through the lens and is captured on a senor-array?

So you're telling me that a camera is taking a picture of a star just from delayed light? How can you take a picture of lightwaves only? You need the light source. Something doesn't add up.

You do not take a picture of lightwaves. Light hits a tiny little sensor in the camera. The sensor records the brightness and the color, and translates that to a dot - a pixel - of a specific color. Several million pixels together make a picture. Thus we take a picture just with delayed light. The light source does not even need to exist anymore - as long as the light is still in transit.

It is remarkably similar to how our eyes work: a lens focusses the light on little sensors - rods and cones in the case of our eyes. In my own case, the ones that detect red light do not work very well - hence red does not stand out as much for me as it does for other people, which we can demonstrate by asking me to look at a color-blindness test. I cannot make out the ones that use red dots to make a pattern.

So that leaves us with the problem - if efferent sight is true, then we should see the stars in a different place from where we record the incoming light. We don't.

Also, there should be an interval between when we see large, far away objects such as supernova's, and when we can take a picture of it with a camera, which works only by recording incoming light. There isn't.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am definitely skeptical of medicine due to the fact that it's disease oriented, surgery oriented, and medicine oriented. I am not saying there isn't a place for medicine, especially when someone absolutely needs what medicine provides. I just don't believe that we need to be taking all these meds, and I do question the motives of all those who have a personal stake in what they're selling you. People are not always honest with their patients or with themselves when money is the issue. I am a critical thinker and a skeptic. I think complementary medicine is being accepted by the mainstream. Isn't the hippocratic oath, "First do no harm?" Chiropracters, for example, are on many insurance plans. Why not try things that are less invasive, before going to the treatments that have a higher chance of side effects? I think that's rational thinking.

Some doubt and a questioning attitude is reasonable. But honestly - Aids deniers? Anti-vac fanatics and quacks? These people support their assertions incredibly poorly. The whole anti-vaccination debate is based on a terribly flawed study where we have conclusively shown the data was purposefully manipulated in order to support a view the researcher held before starting the research in the first place.

The only reason these ideas are still around is because people just love to believe it, and do not critically examine the actual research, or learn much about what they are denying. The first is easy and kind of makes you feel as if you have special knowledge, the second is hard and can be confusing.

So wrong Vivisectus. I think you are doing everything you can to convince yourself that I'm gullible. But I'm really not. I weigh my options very carefully, and I don't think there is anything stupid about being cautious and trying something that cannot harm, and could possibly help, then taking potentially dangerous medicines, and getting cut open in surgery as a first line of defense.

[/QUOTE]

If done carefully together with a good and properly trained MD, sure, that is reasonable. Just be careful to never ignore a proper medically trained person in favor of a quack. It happens more often than you think.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you if the main concept is sloppy. I don't think it is. I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are getting off onto an unnecessary tangent that could ruin it for you because you are once again judging the book's validity by who wrote these quotes. I did the best I could, and with good intentions. All I have gotten here is criticism, although I do thank you for pointing certain things out to me. But enough is enough, don't you agree?

I am just pointing out that if I wanted science minded skeptics, and actual scientists, to read my book, to find it compelling and worth further investigation, I wouldn't use supporting quotes from those who are considered quacks and nuts. Quacks and nuts are used as support by other quacks and nuts...that is reality.

Milton has a whole page at Skeptics Dictionary, which is widely read by the people you claim you are trying to reach.

The page of quotes isn't verified anywhere they are posted. They may have been made up, changed or taken out of context. The authors quoted might be upset if they found they were misquoted. If they were misquoted or wrongly attributed as saying something they didn't say, that might be libelous. As a serious researcher with a serious idea to spread I wouldn't use them unless I verified them myself.

Again, this is just free business advice. Take it or leave it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you if the main concept is sloppy. I don't think it is. I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are getting off onto an unnecessary tangent that could ruin it for you because you are once again judging the book's validity by who wrote these quotes. I did the best I could, and with good intentions. All I have gotten here is criticism, although I do thank you for pointing certain things out to me. But enough is enough, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am just pointing out that if I wanted science minded skeptics, and actual scientists, to read my book, to find it compelling and worth further investigation, I wouldn't use supporting quotes from those who are considered quacks and nuts.

Milton has a whole page at Skeptics Dictionary, which is widely read by the people you claim you are trying to reach. Quacks and nuts are used as support by other quacks and nuts.

I have no understanding regarding the connection between quacks and non-quacks. I guess I would be considered a quack of the worst kind. Sadly, I never intended to fool anyone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The page of quotes isn't verified anywhere they are posted. They may have been made up or taken out of context. As a serious researcher with a serious idea to spread I wouldn't use them unless I verified them myself.

Again, this is just free business advice. Take it or leave it.

I told you I appreciate your advice, but this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THESE CONCEPTS. Take it or leave LadyShea. I owe you nothing; just what I believe is true.