A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can tell your response was spoken from the heart. I really don't know why free thought is not more open to different points of view without all the vitriol. In order to speak freely, you need to feel safe, and most people will not dare speak out because they see what happens to people who disagree. It's a lot of group think in these forums, even if people think they are being objective.

I would like post the next excerpt (which I had posted before) but I don't want to do it without knowing whether you are interested. I am not telling you that you have to like it, agree with it, or even understand it, but at least you'll have an idea of what it's about so you can make up your own mind. Let me know if you want me to continue because the last thing I want to do is push this book on anyone.

I am kind of unsure whether to post anymore. I think what is more productive is to start my own website and create a book club for anyone who has the book and wants to discuss it. Posting "bits and pieces" is a tease in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Well first I think the last thing is a bit of a reach because obviously you are pushing this book. Not a bad thing but not the last thing on your mind.

And human beings are often slaves to conformity, I tend to cherish people who aren't. But then that gets me banned, or just harassed. What can you do sheep don't like being told they are sheep, trolls don't like being told they are pack hunters. Idiots will conform because they don't really think about morality or ethics they are only following orders.

Do what you like. I either will or wont like it. Nothing changes if I do or don't.

I'm not mental by the way I don't think there are a secret conspiracy of trolls, although there are packs of them. I just think to say that they don't group and groupthink would be rather naive. All morons do. Individuality, free thought and diversity mean nothing to these people. They simply do not care to think for themselves and it's likely they never will. Any creativity they had has got ground down to working out which person to suck up to and when. Trolls aren't individuals they are Gestalts.

If you'll pardon the Oxford commas, I would say that you can say whatever you like, just don't be told that you can not. Even if it is specious guff. Fear isn't the mind killer conformity because of fear is.

I would rather answer any questions in my own words, but that will never suffice if one really wants to understand the discovery fully. I don't even know if I want to discuss the book anymore because it's rather exhausting after 300 + pages and getting nowhere.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am kind of unsure whether to post anymore. I think what is more productive is to start my own website and create a book club for anyone who has the book and wants to discuss it. Posting "bits and pieces" is a tease in my opinion.

I would rather answer any questions in my own words, but that will never suffice if one really wants to understand the discovery fully. I don't even know if I want to discuss the book anymore because it's rather exhausting after 300 + pages and getting nowhere.

Sounds like a plan.

What can I say, except to iterate what Voltaire said about your right to have an opinion even though anyone might vehemently disagree with it including him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Sounds like a plan.

What can I say, except to iterate what Voltaire said about your right to have an opinion even though anyone might vehemently disagree with it including him.

I agree wholeheartedly. The only difference is that this discovery is not an opinion. But that's water under the bridge.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Say what you want I will agree or I wont.

A good part of the conflict is from frustration of people asking for clarification and explinations of parts of the book, and Peacegirl will dodge, evade, or ignore these. Many times there have been direct questions that have gotten the same response from Peacegirl, quite often she will just say the person didn't read the book and should go back and read it. She has called many people liers, who have stated that they read the book, but because they disagree or question it, she will deny that they could have read it. You don't need to take my word for this there is plenty of evidence in the thread if you care to look, and it shouldn't take long to find. The basic point is the 'Free will' question which she has refused to elaborate on except to quote from the book, and the 2 sided equation that she will not state or explain, but will demand that others read the book and explain it to her to verify that they understand it. A few have said that it is not clearly stated in the book and Peacegirl will just rant that they have not read the book at all.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A good part of the conflict is from frustration of people asking for clarification and explinations of parts of the book, and Peacegirl will dodge, evade, or ignore these. Many times there have been direct questions that have gotten the same response from Peacegirl, quite often she will just say the person didn't read the book and should go back and read it. She has called many people liers, who have stated that they read the book, but because they disagree or question it, she will deny that they could have read it. You don't need to take my word for this there is plenty of evidence in the thread if you care to look, and it shouldn't take long to find. The basic point is the 'Free will' question which she has refused to elaborate on except to quote from the book, and the 2 sided equation that she will not state or explain, but will demand that others read the book and explain it to her to verify that they understand it. A few have said that it is not clearly stated in the book and Peacegirl will just rant that they have not read the book at all.

I know.

Doc I am not without compassion for the other side, I just don't want her to think she can't have an opinion. After a few weeks of being given mine I just think it's the least she deserves, because I have said nothing controversial and yet these maggots are just trying to make everything I say something contentious. I mean you been here while you know what these people are like. I would be a hypocrite if didn't extend the same courtesy to her, even though no one ever gets any because as soon as you join the forum a group of morons just decide you don't deserve it. You know morons ever convinced that sheep like behaviour means they are granted the right to follow orders.

It's amusing this forum but there are a lot of groupthink idiots who think a forum must give them the right to have some orders I mean.

Thems the rules Doc, fuck me have you ever learnt to think for yourself or do you just do what they told you?

They all have their smillies their herding and there cock sucking. I don't want anyone to think I condone it, the behaviour is just wankers herding.

Mind you it would get dull if you didn't point out that the cock suckers and the rimmers were just pointless, ass licking conformists that they are. They are and yet they contest it? Why?

All I was trying to say was don't let the bastards grind you down. They are idiots after all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Sounds like a plan.

What can I say, except to iterate what Voltaire said about your right to have an opinion even though anyone might vehemently disagree with it including him.

She and Lessans certainly have the right to their opinion as stated in the book , but the problem with the plan is that once someone reads the book, they will have questions and disagreements and then Peasegirl will be back to the same old rant that they didn't read the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that this discovery is not an opinion.

The real problem is that there is no real discovery, just a fantastic fiction invented by Lessans as a joke.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree wholeheartedly. The only difference is that this discovery is not an opinion. But that's water under the bridge.

No, it is an opinion, and it's wrong. His opinions are at variance with the facts of reality.

He held the opinions that he did, because he was a blockhead. Off of which you are a chip.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, it is an opinion, and it's wrong. His opinions are at variance with the facts of reality.

He held the opinions that he did, because he was a blockhead. Off of which you are a chip.

That is a typical reaction of yours, so it's not a surprise that you continue to make fun of this most significant discovery. I have no idea why you can't just let it go. Believe what you want. Live and let live.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The real problem is that there is no real discovery, just a fantastic fiction invented by Lessans as a joke.

You are still saying the same thing? Why can't you let it go doc. You've been the most verbal of all with absolutely nothing to say. I've never seen anything like it. You have no idea what this discovery is about. I've told you this but you insist that it's fiction. Who's being a troll now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

She and Lessans certainly have the right to their opinion as stated in the book , but the problem with the plan is that once someone reads the book, they will have questions and disagreements and then Peasegirl will be back to the same old rant that they didn't read the book.

BUT YOU DIDN'T. WHAT'S THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION DOC. YOU READ THE BOOK, RIGHT?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A good part of the conflict is from frustration of people asking for clarification and explinations of parts of the book, and Peacegirl will dodge, evade, or ignore these.

I don't ignore anyone unless they bully me, and there's been a tremendous amount of that starting from day one.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Many times there have been direct questions that have gotten the same response from Peacegirl, quite often she will just say the person didn't read the book and should go back and read it. She has called many people liers, who have stated that they read the book, but because they disagree or question it, she will deny that they could have read it. You don't need to take my word for this there is plenty of evidence in the thread if you care to look, and it shouldn't take long to find.

I have done no such thing. People are very confrontative, and if I said you have to read the book it's because I believe you didn't read the book. You can fool me some of the time, but you can't fool me all of the time. I can tell by your questions that you didn't read it. So don't make me out to be the bad guy here.

Originally Posted by thedoc

The basic point is the 'Free will' question which she has refused to elaborate on except to quote from the book, and the 2 sided equation that she will not state or explain, but will demand that others read the book and explain it to her to verify that they understand it. A few have said that it is not clearly stated in the book and Peacegirl will just rant that they have not read the book at all.

How many times did I tell people to read pages 46-59, so we could have decent discussion? Nobody wanted to discuss anything because david said it's a modal fallacy, which it isn't. Vivisectus said it's circular reasoning, which it isn't. I was going to hand you all these pages on a silver platter, so we could then have a productive discussion, but no one could get off the sentence regarding the two choices we have which is to live life through the best we can, or commit suicide. What other choice do we have? Everyone was reading into this comment, so we never got any further. This thread has the most pages, and the least content of all the forums I've been to.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread has the most pages, and the least content of all the forums I've been to.

Well I can agree with that as far as your contributions, which were unsuported opinion, are concerned, but other posters have presented a considerable amount of good information to consider. And now I'm glad to see Sidhe delving into the philosophical aspect, since there never was any math or science, which is what most got hung up on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I tell people to read pages 46-59, so we could have decent discussion?

And how many times did people say they read the section and the whole book, but you just called them liers because they disagreed or had some question. Every problem on this thread was brought on by you, Peacegirl, because of your contentious manner and unreasonable attitude.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I tell people to read pages 46-59, so we could have decent discussion?

Just 'WHO THE HELL' are you to tell anyone to do anything, you don't own the thread, and are not anyone's boss. Just some bossy bad tempered bitch comeing here trying to shove your bit of trash down our throats. You diserve all the vitrol you got plus more.

[thedoc]

Given your demonstrated attitude here, I'm not surprised you're not married anymore. God help any poor sucker that gets stuck with you again, 'Misery' 1990 would be tame by comparison

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't teach them that. That would have been too confusing for them.

Why not?

You're right because the other party doesn't get it. You cannot work these principles with one half of the equation oblivious to these principles. I have already told you this.

Did you even notice that these were framed as questions, not as statements of fact?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop Vivisectus. You are giving this book a bad name, and you think you are doing it in the name of truth and justice. How wrong can someone be?

How is Vivisectus giving the book a bad name in that post? His criticisms were directed at your manner of responding to challenges to claims made in the book. His criticisms, in that post, were not directed at the book or at Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof is there and there's no denying it.

If there is anything resembling a proof for any of the claims in Lessans' book why don't you go ahead and post one of those proofs? Until you do so it is certainly reasonable to deny that there is anything like a proof anywhere in the book. Just one proof, peacegirl. Is that so hard?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If there is anything resembling a proof for any of the claims in Lessans' book why don't you go ahead and post one of those proofs? Until you do so it is certainly reasonable to deny that there is anything like a proof anywhere in the book. Just one proof, peacegirl. Is that so hard?

Actually that is all but impossable because there is no proof in the book, only faulty reasoning, vague assertions, and silly hypothisis based on a lot of wild imaginings from his pool hall carousings colored with a bit of sales elaboration.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well I can agree with that as far as your contributions, which were unsuported opinion, are concerned, but other posters have presented a considerable amount of good information to consider. And now I'm glad to see Sidhe delving into the philosophical aspect, since there never was any math or science, which is what most got hung up on.

It's too little too late.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually that is all but impossable because there is no proof in the book, only faulty reasoning, vague assertions, and silly hypothisis based on a lot of wild imaginings from his pool hall carousings colored with a bit of sales elaboration.

Doc, you are speaking nonsense. You have been spouting off lies. You know nothing about the book, so why keep up the pretense?

[Angakuk]

If you are finished fussing around with the doc, could you please post one of those proofs for us?

kthnks

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't personally choose to teach your kids that man's will is not free and not to blame?

I didn't teach them that. That would have been too confusing for them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't personally refrain from using words like beautiful and ugly in your home?

Why not?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't make tasty meals and not gripe at your husband about money? You can't follow the parenting and educational principles?

Where did you get that idea about things you can and cannot do? These educational and parenting principles are grounded in a completely different society, but you can still use many of these principles notwithstanding.

You're right because the other party doesn't get it. You cannot work these principles with one half of the equation oblivious to these principles. I have already told you this.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Did you even notice that these were framed as questions, not as statements of fact?

And I answered her with a question.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

it doesn't work like that. If you disagree with the book, then you have not understood it by definition, because her father "worked on it for 30 years, so if there was anything wrong, he would have spotted it". Thus, any criticism just means you are A) too dumb, B) too lazy or C) too mean-spirited or biased against the book.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Rinse, lather, and repeat.

Hello!!! The truth is you have not studied this work. That's why I say you don't undertand it, and I know I'm right. You all are broken records. I never said you were too dumb, or too lazy, but some of you are mean-spirited, and some have bias which complicates things.

Please stop Vivisectus. You are giving this book a bad name, and you think you are doing it in the name of truth and justice. How wrong can someone be?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How is Vivisectus giving the book a bad name in that post? His criticisms were directed at your manner of responding to challenges to claims made in the book. His criticisms, in that post, were not directed at the book or at Lessans.

My manner of responding to challenges to claims made in the book was a reaction to the general attitude in here which was doomed from day one. The attacks and bullying ruined any chances for this book to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof is there and there's no denying it.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If there is anything resembling a proof for any of the claims in Lessans' book why don't you go ahead and post one of those proofs? Until you do so it is certainly reasonable to deny that there is anything like a proof anywhere in the book. Just one proof, peacegirl. Is that so hard?

If you didn't see the proof in Chapter One, what makes you think you'll see it now? Or maybe you didn't even read Chapter One.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hello!!! You all are broken records.

That was not me. That was Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But my manner of responding to challenges to claims made in the book were a reaction to the lack of interest or questions that people had. And when I did answer a question, they still thought these were mere assertions so we couldn't make any progress.

Regardless, Vivisectus' criticisms were directed at you, not at the book. So why did you respond as though they were directed at the book?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you didn't see the proof in Chapter One, what makes you think you'll see it now? Or maybe you didn't even read Chapter One.

Obviously, neither I, nor anyone else who has commented, saw anything resembling a proof in Chapter One. That being the case, it is up to you to show us what part of Chapter One you think constitutes a proof. Surely, if it is there, you can show it to us. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Put up or shut up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you are finished fussing around with the doc, could you please post one of those proofs for us?

kthnks

I told you that the only way you are going to understand any of this is to read Chapter One carefully. I can't spoon feed this to you. Now it's too late. I took it down. I'm taking Google's down too.