A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again: WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

Why do you continue posting here when no-one thinks Lessans' claims have any merit, everyone thinks you're nuts, and you yourself acknowledge that you are wasting your own time? Why are you here?

I really don't know what you want from me, but the bottom line is you have not given Lessans a chance. You can think what you want, and you can make stories about my motivations. It really doesn't matter. The truth is the truth and will come out in the end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That leaves you with a bunch of presuppositions he was working from that you can't support. You are left with begging readers to "trust" that these were valid conclusions drawn from accurate observations. Too bad for you.

I'm not begging you. I actually don't want you to participate because you believe you have it all figured out.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. This just shows the deep threat you feel because you have invested your entire life on something that may not be true. I can't even talk to you because of your emotions. They have taken control and you are not able to be rational.

Project much, peacegirl?

Now, then, answer the questions. Here it is again:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Can't answer the questions? Then you got nothing.

So far your answers have been: "it must be circumstantial," and "something else must be going on there."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are alive when this knowledge is brought to light, you will eat your words. But this is not about revenge. This is about forgiveness even if you got it all wrong.

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Well, you wanted to share Lessans' knowledge with us, peacegirl! Above is a question from the class -- a question you've spent more than 1,000 pages dodging. And the reason is simple: you have no answer. Worse, you knew nothing about these fatal problems for the buffoon's "observations" before you came here, did you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again: WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

Why do you continue posting here when no-one thinks Lessans' claims have any merit, everyone thinks you're nuts, and you yourself acknowledge that you are wasting your own time? Why are you here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know what you want from me,

What part of WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE? is confusing to you?

but the bottom line is you have not given Lessans a chance.

So are you here to try to make us give Lessans a chance?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not begging you. I actually don't want you to participate because you have it all figured out. Let it go LadyShea.

LOL.

Please respond to this

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It comes down to this, peacegirl. When offered conclusions reached by another person we have a choice; blindly accept that the person drew valid conclusions, assume the person quite possibly or probably drew valid conclusions based on our experiences with that person or his/her expertise, thought processes, methodology, etc. or review the source material and draw our own conclusions.

You have given us no source material to review. Without it, we have no reason, whatsoever to blindly accept that Lessans' conclusions are the same ones we would reach. If we were to accept it without reviewing the sources, it would be on faith, only. I have no reason to put any faith in Lessans, he might have been delusional or of low intelligence or made mistakes in his inferences for all I know.

[davidm]

It doesn't matter if she gave a mountain of source material to review. Lessans' claims about light and sight are empirically wrong. That's all we need to know. Since peacegirl herself says that his claims about light and sight must be right as a precondition of accepting his conclusions, then we know already that his conclusions are false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What part of WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE? is confusing to you?

So are you here to try to make us give Lessans a chance?

Because I thought you were interested, but I can tell from your post that you think you know more than him. You are positive that he is wrong because he didn't use the scientific method, but his observations were correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL.

Please respond to this

LadyShea, his observations are accurate and are explained in detail. You won't go further because you can't stand that he didn't use the scientific method even though this knowledge is scientific. You would rather reject a discovery, or even learn about it, than to admit that he could have been right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It doesn't matter if she gave a mountain of source material to review. Lessans' claims about light and sight are empirically wrong. That's all we need to know. Since peacegirl herself says that his claims about light and sight must be right as a precondition of accepting his conclusions, then we know already that his conclusions are false.

But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, nor is it circular, which you keep insisting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Well, you wanted to share Lessans' knowledge with us, peacegirl! Above is a question from the class -- a question you've spent more than 1,000 pages dodging. And the reason is simple: you have no answer. Worse, you knew nothing about these fatal problems for the buffoon's "observations" before you came here, did you?

People that don't have a personal investment don't act the way you do. You can't help but attack him even when he did nothing to you. He made observations that are in contradiction with your belief system, and you resent him for it. You don't even see the connection.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a thorn.

Thankyou, I rather like being a thorn.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a bigger jerk than NA, and that's a difficult achievement. Your mouth won't stop running. It's amazing to me what jerkiness someone who has NO KNOWLEDGE can actually make people believe. I didn't put you on ignore because I moved on to another post, but you have dug your grave. You have nothing to offer whatsoever. You are a thorn.

Well, I guess you got told. It looks like maybe she ain't all that crazy after all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a bigger jerk than NA, and that's a difficult achievement. Your mouth won't stop running. It's amazing to me what jerkiness someone who has NO KNOWLEDGE can actually make people believe. I didn't put you on ignore because I moved on to another post, but you have dug your grave. You have nothing to offer whatsoever. You are a thorn.

Did I mention somewhere that it seems that the closer someone is to the truth about Peacegirl/Lessans/the book, the more hostility is expressed in Peacegirl's posts?

Hey NA, I'm now supposed to be bigger than you are but I'm not very big about 5'-7" 150 lbs. How do we compare that way, I know in other ways there is no comparison.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, or is it circular, which you keep insisting.

The modal fallacy applies to his stupid free will argument. His claims on light and sight are empirically wrong. So they are wrong for different reasons: His philosophical argument is deductively wrong (bad logic) and his light-and-sight argument is empirically wrong. So sorry.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People that don't have a personal investment don't act the way you do. You can't help but attack him even when he did nothing to you. He made observations that are in contradiction with your belief system, and you resent him for it. You don't even see the connection.

No, he made "observations" that are in contradiction with reality. I, and others, react strongly against you not because you threaten our "beliefs," but because we find liars to be contemptible and worthy of censure.

Now, if Lessans is right, answer the question. Here it is again:


Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Can you answer the question or not?

Notice there is nothing personal here. It's a simple question about reality. And one that you will never be able to answer, because the answer shows that Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Well, I guess you got told. It looks like maybe she ain't all that crazy after all.

I think you are right, it must be everyone else who is crazy. I know the participants on this thread are crazy for being here.

Did I miss the party?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are positive, in your mind, that he is wrong because he didn't use the scientific method the way you expected.

He didn't use the scientific method at all, much less in an unexpected way.

So to call his work "scientific" is a monstrous lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, or is it circular, which you keep insisting.

Originally Posted by davidm

The modal fallacy applies to his stupid free will argument.

I know what it applies to, but there is no modal fallacy David. That's just something you are using to dismiss his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

Originally Posted by davidm

His claims on light and sight are empirically wrong. So they are wrong for different reasons: His philosophical argument is deductively wrong (bad logic) and his light-and-sight argument is empirically wrong. So sorry.

His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

He didn't use the scientific method at all, much less in an unexpected way.

So to call his work "scientific" is a monstrous lie.

The fact that no one shows any interest in understanding what his observations were because they don't believe they could be accurate, is leaving us nowhere to go. My frustration is beginning to get the best of me. I am going to have to move to another forum (until I begin advertising) where people will, at the very least, give him the benefit of the doubt, although this time it will be moderated!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I thought you were interested, but I can tell from your post that you think you know more than him. You are positive, in your mind, that he is wrong because he didn't use the scientific method the way you expected. I now I am asking you to leave. People leave meetings all the time, so why can't you?

You aren't serious with this shit? ROFL

[The Lone Ranger]

The fact that no one shows any interest in understanding what his observations were because they don't believe they could be accurate, is leaving us nowhere to go.

What observations? People have been begging you to provide his actual so-called "observations" -- as opposed to his assertions -- for literally hundreds of pages now. So:

What were they?
How were they tested and validated?
How did he control for error and bias?
What sorts of experimental setups did he use, and what were the treatments, sample sizes, and controls?
How were his so-called "observations" replicated, and by whom?
What were the statistical tests used to establish the significance of these "observations"?
Why weren't these "observations" and conclusions submitted for peer review?


I repeat: If you can't answer these questions, then he didn't use the scientific method at all, much less in an unexpected way. So to call his work "scientific" is a monstrous lie.

[LadyShea]

The fact that no one shows any interest in understanding what his observations were because they don't believe they could be accurate, is leaving us nowhere to go. My frustration is beginning to get the best of me. I am going to have to move to another forum (until I begin advertising) where people will, at the very least, give him the benefit of the doubt, although this time it will be moderated!

I thought you vowed to never ever go to a forum again because they all are the same? Or are you finally going to the woos?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what it applies to, but there is no modal fallacy David. That's just something you are using to dismiss his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

you dishonest little twerp. You don't even have a clue about what you just wrote.

Now then, here is the question again. Let's see if you can do better:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Answer, please!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you do, just like Spacemokey has a right to be here. Why are you questioning his motivations while refusing to reveal your own?

Says the person who just said "Find another thread Spacemonkey"

Hypocrite

I just don't get why he chooses to waste his time here. I have to leave as well because nothing has changed. It's deja vu.