A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by 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

It will be interesting to watch and see how she handles it, especially the criticism and those who disagree.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Was that the basement without a ground level entrance?

A basement with a ground level entrance is no true basement. It is, at best, a pseudo-basement. One might, perhaps, call it a basementelle.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

A basement with a ground level entrance is no true basement. It is, at best, a pseudo-basement. One might, perhaps, call it a basementelle.

In wet weather it could be a swiming pool?

[Angakuk]

More like one of those walk-in bathtubs for the olds, what with the door and all.

[peacegirl]

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.

I realized it wasn't directed toward me, and I thought I had deleted it, but it still posted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Absolutely wrong. All he did was skim through the book taking sentences that he knew would sound nutty without it being in context. He made a total mockery out of this book, and I'm supposed to be taken seriously? He and Stephen ruined it for me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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?

Thank you for defending me naturalist.atheist. I'm so use to being knocked down (4 months of this) that I forget what it feels like to have someone say anything nice at all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. All he did was skim through the book taking sentences that he knew would sound nutty without it being in context. He made a total mockery out of this book, and I'm supposed to be taken seriously? He and Stephen ruined it for me.

Stephen ---> Me --->

Wrong again. I read the book, with the exception of some stretches here and there that I skimmed that were nothing but Lessans complaining about how no one took him seriously despite his magnificence. And I also skipped his junk on the new economic order.

You don't seem to realize -- will never understand -- that virtually no educated person is going to read past the point where he talks about real-time seeing. It is la-la land stuff that an educated grade schooler could pick apart. It's a big screaming CRACKPOT sign that will turn off anyone with an education.


The book is crap, wrong on every count. And what is important to note is that people here have repeatedly shown exactly why it is crap. All you have come back with are assertions, dishonestly, and whining laments like the above, playing the victim card. And this victim card is especially hypocritical, given that part of it involves your repeated (wrong) claims that no one read the book, and yet you can't trouble yourself to read 35 pages by The Lone Ranger on how we see, can you?

You have pulled this exact same schtick at every board you have ever been on. I suggest Talk Rational next. If you think we are evil ....

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

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.

I came here to share a book that is revolutionary.

Originally Posted by davidm

We looked at the book, and told her what was wrong with it. She called us liars, cretins, a mob.

OMG, I did not ever use the word cretin. Find it in this thread and I'll eat my words. I never said you're a mob. I said you all have a mob mentality, which you do. I called people out when I thought they were lying. Hello???? How convenient it is to forget that I was called a liar, an ignoramus, a troll, an idiot, pissgirl, a vapid cunt, etc. etc. etc. How can anyone have a serious conversation with all this name calling? That's why I got nowhere.

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

I would never have said anything like that. You must have misunderstood.

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

I didn't refuse to read it. I said that the relevant part was where the photoreceptors are transduced into electro-chemical signals. Reading the rest would have been tedious because it didn't relate to this discussion and because I was not familiar with some of the terms.

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

I hope that's not what he's doing. I hope he is actually defending me because he might have been in a similar situation. Empathy is an important emotion, and I think naturalist.atheist has a lot of it. He probably didn't participate because he didn't want to add to the mayhem.

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

You were definitely rough on me, and you misrepresented the book which was the most painful. Why did you have to joke about that one sentence: goils, and rumpy pumpy, and all the other mean things you made up? Why? If you didn't agree with Lessans, why couldn't you have just said I don't agree, and leave it at that? But instead you had to dig a knife into me every time you dirtied this book.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

I am not rude david. I retaliated a couple of times but I controlled myself for the most part, which I can't say about you. Where did I tell LadyShea she was bitter?

I'm taking down the book david but not for those reasons. I don't want someone like you to misconstrue it. You are the loser here, not me. I will sell the book and for those people who really understand it, it will be the best self-help book they ever read.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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 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.

You are very sweet naturalist.atheist, but truth be told this book is reasoned well. I hope you read it in its entirety one day, and give the author the benefit of the doubt before passing judgment, which this group never did. All they said over and over like a broken record is that it's a tautology, which it is not. They said it's a modal fallacy, which it is not. They made up strange refutations that did not hold weight, yet everybody thinks I am leaving with my tail between my legs, as if they won. They won nothing.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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.

Realizing that this conversation was only going to escalate the more I talked, I should have left much earlier than I did. But we all know hindsight is 20/20.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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.

Thanks for that. I have to admit that love changes things, but that doesn't mean this book is not authentic, and a genuine discovery. I just won't be able to prove it to you guys.

[Doctor X]

No, not at all.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

In all fairness to peacegirl, she is fully justified in not reading TLR's essay. She has already admitted that nothing anyone says can ever change her mind about the validity and importance of her father's work. That being the case, reading TLR's essay, or anything else that contradicts Lessans' claims, would be an exercise in futility and a waste of her time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

Please stop telling me I am the bad guy here. I was accused of everything under sun, called vicious names, told I'm incompetent, and a bad writer. In 4 months time, not one nice thing was said about me, not that I was looking for it. But the extreme anger in here was disproportionate to my honest and forthright responses. It isn't surprising that if you get knocked down enough times, you're going to strike back.

As far as David goes, I put him on ignore but would periodically check some of the posts that were on ignore, and some of his were relevant, so I tried giving him another chance. I know I'm a pushover, which probably made him that much angrier. That's probably why he grew nastier instead of being more tolerant. That's what really killed this thread.

Originally Posted by Kael

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.

I'm not playing martyr. I am in control of how I respond to this experience, but I can't control the experience itself. It's been rough. I also feel a lot of time was wasted. We never got into the meat of the discovery. Doesn't that seem unbelievable after all these pages?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I should have left much earlier than I did. But we all know hindsight is 20/20.

Your words imply that you have left, which you obviously have not. It would appear that even your hindsight is defective.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as David goes, I put him on ignore but would check some of the posts and some were relevant, so I gave him another chance. But in the end he grew nastier and nastier instead of being more tolerant. That's what really killed this thread.

To how many causes has peacegirl assigned the failure of this thread? Is anyone keeping track? Notably, not once has she laid any of the blame at her own doorstep.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Stephen ---> Me --->

Yes, you, Stephen and the Editor were the ringleaders.

Originally Posted by davidm

Wrong again. I read the book, with the exception of some stretches here and there that I skimmed that were nothing but Lessans complaining about how no one took him seriously despite his magnificence. And I also skipped his junk on the new economic order.

You are so jaded, please keep your customized title. It suits you perfectly.

Originally Posted by davidm

You don't seem to realize -- will never understand -- that virtually no educated person is going to read past the point where he talks about real-time seeing. It is la-la land stuff that an educated grade schooler could pick apart. It's a big screaming CRACKPOT sign that will turn off anyone with an education.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the verdict is still out.

Originally Posted by davidm

The book is crap, wrong on every count. And what is important to note is that people here have repeatedly shown exactly why it is crap. All you have come back with are assertions, dishonestly, and whining laments like the above, playing the victim card. And this victim card is especially hypocritical, given that part of it involves your repeated (wrong) claims that no one read the book, and yet you can't trouble yourself to read 35 pages by The Lone Ranger on how we see, can you?

If you read the book, tell me what the two-sided equation is david. Tell me how the schools will be run in the new world, without cheating. Tell me how children will be brought up. Tell me why there will be no divorces? The fact that you didn't read the economic chapter, which is the key to the entire book, means you're busted. There's absolutely no way you can understand how this new world can become a reality without reading the economic chapter.

Originally Posted by davidm

You have pulled this exact same schtick at every board you have ever been on. I suggest Talk Rational next. If you think we are evil ....

I told you David, I am finished with these type forums. They don't work not because Lessans is wrong; but because the dynamic that goes on doesn't allow for a truly open-minded discussion. Group think failed in this case. This group has no conception of how off the mark their arguments became.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In all fairness to peacegirl, she is fully justified in not reading TLR's essay. She has already admitted that nothing anyone says can ever change her mind about the validity and importance of her father's work. That being the case, reading TLR's essay, or anything else that contradicts Lessans' claims, would be an exercise in futility and a waste of her time.

Understanding the logic behind the afferent model of sight does not prove that it's airtight.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your words imply that you have left, which you obviously have not. It would appear that even your hindsight is defective.

I can't help but laugh at this point.