A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have nothing to feel guilty about.

peacegirl, that response was directed at davidm. I may disagree with you but I respect where you are coming from.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, that response was directed at davidm. I may disagree with you but I respect where you are coming from.

Perhaps you have failed to notice that Peacegirl is a bit self-centered and needy, and thinks that every post is directed at her. She has some problems with reading comprehension as is evedenced by her fevered support of the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You chopped the book up into pieces, never giving Lessans a chance.

How is it possable for Davidm to chop the book up if he hasn't read it. To criticize the book means that he needed to read it first.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps you have failed to notice that Peacegirl is a bit self-centered and needy, and thinks that every post is directed at her. She has some problems with reading comprehension as is evedenced by her fevered support of the book.

She might be all that or maybe she is not as familiar with forums as you are. Also when you have been at the bottom of a pile-on for as long as peacegirl has been I would imagine she may be overly defensive.

Is there some particular reason you have such a lack of charity towards peacegirl? Did she hit you with a copy of her father's book? I understand she is doggedly sticking with her father. Does this bother you? Maybe your daughter (if you have one) wouldn't do the same for you?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sure that if ever she gets a site going and it has a forum, you and your ilk will be all over it like stink on shit.

Not likely. I sure won't be.

You are confused. This is a discussion board. Peacegirl came here to discuss a book. We looked at the book, and told her what was wrong with it. She called us liars, cretins, a mob. She told us we hadn't read the book, when we had read it. She told the Lone Ranger, a scientist who teaches biology at a college, that he needed to go back to school. The Lone Ranger wrote a 35-page essay on how we see, and Peacegirl refused to read it, all the while chastising us for not reading her father's idiotic book, when in fact many people here DID read it.

She is a dishonest little hypocrite and a liar. Your backdoor defense of her as a means of attacking people here you don't like is precious. Maybe, since all you ever do is blather about the sanctity of science and the utter impoverishment of any other field of inquiry or thought, it would have behooved you to help us in promoting good science and rational thinking on this thread, which is what we have been trying to do.

It's true many of us have been very rough on peacegirl. How sad. But I and others will be rough on liars, hypocrites, and the willfully ignorant.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As for my failings, such as they may be, I take full ownership of them. However davidm's problems are his own. Make a note of it.

And I, unlike you, made many, many posts in this thread explaining and defending good science. What irony, eh? I'm supposed to be the airy-fairy philosopher that you disdain.

Nobody has been ruder in this thread than peacegirl. She has repeatedly insulted the intelligence of posters who took a fair amount of trouble to show her why her father was wrong. She repeatedly evaded questions, told lies about what people said, twisted the meaning of people's posts, accused people of not reading the book when they had, and on and on. I don't see why she deserves any deference. She ought to be thanking us for offering her an education gratis.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Is there some particular reason you have such a lack of charity towards peacegirl? Did she hit you with a copy of her father's book? I understand she is doggedly sticking with her father. Does this bother you? Maybe your daughter (if you have one) wouldn't do the same for you?

Perhaps it is her lack, or refusal to answer a question directly, or the evasive nature of her comments when she does answer. After a long exchange without a direct or clear response one does tend to loose patience with someone.

I had read the book and the constant accusation that I had not read by her does wear on the nerves after awhile. I do not appreciate being called a lier, since honesty is one of the qualities I value, and I have not seen much honesty with her, only blind obedience to 'the word'.

Considering your support of her commitment to her fathers work, have you read the book?

I would hope that my daughters do not unquestioningly cling to whatever I say, I would prefer that they can think critically for themselves and find the truth as they understand it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Not likely. I sure won't be.

You are confused. This is a discussion board. Peacegirl came here to discuss a book. We looked at the book, and told her what was wrong with it. She called us liars, cretins, a mob. She told us we hadn't read the book, when we had read it. She told the Lone Ranger, a scientist who teaches biology at a college, that he needed to go back to school. The Lone Ranger wrote a 35-page essay on how we see, and Peacegirl refused to read it, all the while chastising us for not reading her father's idiotic book, when in fact many people here DID read it.

She is a dishonest little hypocrite and a liar. Your backdoor defense of her as a means of attacking people here you don't like is precious. Maybe, since all you ever do is blather about the sanctity of science and the utter impoverishment of any other field of inquiry or thought, it would have behooved you to help us in promoting good science and rational thinking on this thread, which is what we have been trying to do.

It's true many of us have been very rough on peacegirl. How sad. But I and others will be rough on liars, hypocrites, and the willfully ignorant.

My oh my don't you feel guilty.

[Doctor X]

And, you know, sight is not efferent.

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

My oh my don't you feel guilty.

You're such a silly little man.

Figure out yet why you made a bunch of dumb comments in the Hawking/philosophy thread?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps it is her lack, or refusal to answer a question directly, or the evasive nature of her comments when she does answer. After a long exchange without a direct or clear response one does tend to loose patience with someone.

I had read the book and the constant accusation that I had not read by her does wear on the nerves after awhile. I do not appreciate being called a lier, since honesty is one of the qualities I value, and I have not seen much honesty with her, only blind obedience to 'the word'.

Considering your support of her commitment to her fathers work, have you read the book?

I would hope that my daughters do not unquestioningly cling to whatever I say, I would prefer that they can think critically for themselves and find the truth as they understand it.

Yes, this.

As I have said, the rudest person on this thread was peacegirl. It started on the very first page, when she accused Lady Shea of being bitter and angry.

Even The Lone Ranger, who is the gentlest of gentlemen, eventually called her a "liar" and a "little fool" to her face. That's because, as he explained, sooner or later you have to call a spade a spade.

If peacegirl really cared about her father, she would take down the book. The book makes him look foolish.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Considering your support of her commitment to her fathers work, have you read the book?

I have not read Lessan's book. Be that as it may, based on the discussion I am unlikely to read it and if I did would probably not support it.

I would hope that my daughters do not unquestioningly cling to whatever I say, I would prefer that they can think critically for themselves and find the truth as they understand it.

I do however support a daughter's right to support her father no matter how uncritical she may be. It is a bond of love, not a bond of reason. Her father may be guilty of poor reasoning and ignorance, but that is all he is guilty of. Hardly a crime that goes punished in this world, excepting of course by the FF tribunal.

It is one thing to point out where peacegirl or her father may have beliefs that make no sense, once, twice or maybe even thrice. But when you do it over, and over and over, and over, again and again and again. I makes me wonder who is being stupid. You for not being able to understanding where peacegirl is coming from and just letting it be, or peacegirl for being loyal to her dad and not giving up when it is obvious she is not convincing anyone of much of anything.

Loyalty and love are not acts of reason. An intelligent person would know this. I can't fault a daughter for being loyal to her dad.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Figure out yet why you made a bunch of dumb comments in the Hawking/philosophy thread?

Or any other thread?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, that response was directed at davidm. I may disagree with you but I respect where you are coming from.

I thought I had erased that. Oops!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well, I hope you're not too lonely there.

It's better to be lonely than to be abused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Being asked to support your claims and answer objections is not abuse.

FYI, Assertion means nothing more than "Something declared or stated positively".

LadyShea, I believe people were nasty and cruel because these concepts are in contradiction to their worldview.

And, to repeat for the thousandth time, these claims are not unsupported assertions.

[Kael]

The forum has a wide array of customizable features - you need not ever read a post by someone you truly feel is abusive toward you. I have to say, one of the most astoundingly frustrating things you've done here has been to tell davidm you're not going to talk to him anymore, over and over again, only to keep responding every time he mocks you again. If you feel his behavior is intolerable WHY do you keep tolerating it? Put him on ignore and deal with folks like TLR and LadyShea instead, who have gone out of their way to be polite even when you outright accused them of lying.

You control your experience here to a degree well beyond what you can at most other forums. Use that, and stop playing the martyr. It got tiresome several hundred pages ago.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She won't allow dissent, N.A. on her own forum. She will carefully control the discussion, not unlike the imaginary dialogs in the book, or she will simply disallow discussion completely.

I'm surprised at you LadyShea. You're supposed to be unbiased, and you're acting very ignorant right now. Why are you bringing up something about the book (as usual) that doesn't apply and is only meant to cause doubt. I would never disallow a fair discussion. But this was not a fair discussion. More than half of these pages were filled with vitriol. You think this is part of a balanced discussion? It's not LadyShea. You did the same thing in the beginning constantly saying "your father" to try to biased people. I don't know why you're doing this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

FWIW, I am of the opinion that davidm's demeanor has been, at best, rather crass. I was taught, and still believe, that one ought to refrain from insulting people just to insult them, which is all nameburns and the like usually are (incidentally, I couldn't help but thing of you, dear n.a, when davidm would use his "pissgirl" nameburn. I think he owes you an acknowledgment at the very least for the inspiration you provide in piss-related burns). Of course, that's not the same as calling an ignorant person ignorant, or a dishonest person dishonest, and equally of course, davidm has every right to behave that way should he so choose.

Most posters in this thread have shown peacegirl far more patience and been far more polite than her responses to criticism have warranted. Even davidm's rude behavior does not invalidate the many problems he brought forward regarding this supposedly revolutionary work. Rude behavior is a poor shield to hide behind, especially in science.

Also, wtf "she loves her daddy?" Really? What does that have to do with anything, save a possible insight into the foundation of the complete, willful dogmatism she descends to when a single word of her Glorious Father's Great Work is disputed?

Kael, you are one who has no idea what the first chapter is about, let alone Chapter Two. All you keep repeating over and over again is that it doesn't meet scientific standards, but you are not in a position to judge this work. You don't have a clue. This is so far removed from dogmatism, it's laughable. You just resent that I came online and claimed I'm bringing something new. Who wants to hear that when it doesn't coincide with their own beliefs?

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Because Kael, if she feels that way, then what has motivated her is not driven by a critical analysis of the facts. Which of course explains her persistence even in light of the onslaught of both thoughtful and crass responses to her father's book. To continue to confront her based on rational considerations is just stupid.

Actually, my persistence began to get a life of its own. I couldn't leave this thread without answering to these disgusting attacks on this work. I never realized how mean people can get just because they can.

I also want to say that I have carefully listened to all of the rational considerations. I even said that empirical testing would be the final judge since no one will accept that his observations were spot on. There is nothing irrational about my desire to bring this knowledge to light.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This was obvious a long time ago. She may be wrong but I understand her persistence. It could very well be the persistence that a mother shows for the care of a child that is beyond any rational hope. That's a human response. I've seen people do this. It is a noble thing as misplaced as it may be and I don't think she deserves derision for it. Maybe kindness and some understanding would have been more warranted.

I really think you're a nice person naturalist.atheist, but that's not true. I have to admit I'm more emotional than the average person because it was my father, but this doesn't take away from the fact that this is a genuine discovery. Regardless, I don't think I deserved the derision that I got in here. They could have been a lot nicer.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I understand that she did a poor job in both presenting and defending her father's book. But you gotta give her persistence.

I did a poor job because they kept attacking me. I tried to show that cameras and a person's eyes see the same thing, and why. I tried to show (even though more empirical testing is warranted) that dogs cannot identify their owner from a picture, yet LadyShea thinks that by posting an unreliable study, this is proof that Lessans was wrong.

I wanted to continue from page 45. This book is so interesting, and no one gave it a fair chance. This whole thread was consumed by Chapter Four. What ashame.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

My motivation has not been to convince peacegirl, since as you say it has been fairly obvious since the beginning that this isn't really probable, and may only just be possible.

I find it important, however, when confronted with pseudo-science, woo, and assorted internet wankery, to do more than simply state that it is wrong. It is far more important to show how it is wrong, about what, and why. These efforts are not for the benefit of the peddlers of such nonsense. Most of them are either True Believers or already know it's wrong and just want to cash in. One does not debunk Kent Hovind lectures in an attempt to convince Hovind himself of the errors he makes. I know I am not the only poster who has stuck with this stupefying thread for the purpose of making those explanations.

Since you know so much about this discovery, what is it Kael? Tell me his position. I don't think you can do it.

Originally Posted by Kael

Piling on and general mockery, both light-hearted and cruel, is pretty much expected when something this ridiculous comes along. I do not excuse or defend it, but neither do I recognize any special immunity peacegirl should have from ridicule simply because she truly believes everything her dearly loved father wrote.

I don't believe it; I know it. I have read this book numerous times, and have come to my own understanding. I'm not just mimicking what he wrote. Give me a little credit, will you? I don't care if someone thinks he's from outer space, no one deserves this kind of mockery. It's an excuse to be cruel for its own sake. I did nothing to hurt anyone in here, but they certainly hurt me when they started this Rumpy Pumpy business. Not only did they misconstrue so much of Lessans' work, but they completely mischaracterized him. That's just plain wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

good luck to you peacegirl.

Thanks naturalist.atheist. I'm giving you a special invitation to come to my website when it's complete. The website address will be: www.declineandfallofallevil.com

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

I will not be missed. I will be forgotten as quickly as it takes for you to find your next target.