A revolution in thought - Page 366

Angakuk · #**9126** 07-27-2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see the proof, if there actually is one.

Sing it sister! That is precisely what I have been asking you for. If there is any proof in Lessans' book for any of the claims he makes, I'd like to see it. So, why won't you produce it?

Vivisectus · #**9127** 07-27-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am curious: In the 8 years that you have been proselytizing this work, how many people have been convinced?

Vivisectus, I haven't marketed this book. The only people who know about it are those who are on these forums, and you can't use this as a judge.

But there were other forums as well - at least 2 others, and you have been at this for years now. You must have spoken to dozens of people so far?

Not that many people, and the ones I did speak to had their own agendas. Some were Neitzchians, some were objectivists, some were atheists (

), etc. and they were not judging this work objectively. Believe me, no one has taken the time to study this book, no one.

You just say that because to you, studying the book and being utterly convinced are necessarily synonymous! So the answer is none, and it has been years. Is it not perhaps time to change tactics?

peacegirl · #**9128** 07-27-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see the proof, if there actually is one.

Sing it sister! That is precisely what I have been asking you for. If there is any proof in Lessans' book for any of the claims he makes, I'd like to see it. So, why won't you produce it?

I told you all I can do is cut and paste and if you don't think his observations are accurate, or don't prove anything, there's nothing I can do about that.

peacegirl · #**9129** 07-27-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am curious: In the 8 years that you have been proselytizing this work, how many people have been convinced?

Vivisectus, I haven't marketed this book. The only people who know about it are those who are on these forums, and you can't use this as a judge.

But there were other forums as well - at least 2 others, and you have been at this for years now. You must have spoken to dozens of people so far?

Not that many people, and the ones I did speak to had their own agendas. Some were Neitzchians, some were objectivists, some were atheists (

), etc. and they were not judging this work objectively. Believe me, no one has taken the time to study this book, no one.

You just say that because to you, studying the book and being utterly convinced are necessarily synonymous! So the answer is none, and it has been years. Is it not perhaps time to change tactics?

I am going to change tactics. I'm not going anymore forums after this one.

thedoc · #**9130** 07-27-2011, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just say that because to you, studying the book and being utterly convinced are necessarily synonymous! So the answer is none, and it has been years. Is it not perhaps time to change tactics?

L.O.L. I would not describe Peacegirl's method of the presentation of the book as a tactic. It is really difficult to come up with an appropriate term, but that may just be my limited vocabulary, not to mention poor spelling.

thedoc · #**9131** 07-27-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you all I can do is cut and paste and if you don't think his observations are accurate, or don't prove anything, there's nothing I can do about that.

You could try explaining them in clearer language, but that would only be possable if you actually understood the book yourself, then you could explain it in your own words, give alternate examples, etc.

peacegirl · #**9132** 07-27-2011, 09:24 PM

duplicate

peacegirl · #**9133** 07-27-2011, 09:40 PM

duplicate

peacegirl · #**9134** 07-27-2011, 09:44 PM

duplicate

peacegirl · #**9135** 07-27-2011, 09:53 PM

duplicate

peacegirl · #**9136** 07-27-2011, 09:54 PM

duplicate

davidm · #**9137** 07-27-2011, 09:58 PM

Random text generator, Finnegans Wake:

porto flippant; is told in the unthinking tongue in his cattegut bandolair and wine has it cudgelplayers' country, (probable words, run, march, halt, walk, Wellington Park (at least to the Lord's Bed by one hallowe'en night, may she the skirtmishes endupped. For saxonlootie!) three Enkelchums in His Ceiling Flee Chinx on the remains of the waist! Ho, you worded it, a sidewheel dive somewhere off him still to Cover, Salary Grab, Andy Mac Magnus MacCawley can be ultimendly respunchable for that he called quotation marks) on lallance a disguised exnun, of his ville's indigenous romekeepers, homesweepers, domecreepers, thurum and palate,

collision known as fail til heathersmoke and heer lays dormont from the orangeflavoured mudmound had a trifling selves, amadst camel old knoll and falchioned each flash brides or letts, grant ideas, grunted) all over the day but plumps plebmatically for a person garrotted may rise you bring bouncing brimmers from a bottlop stoub by his footwear, say. No, assuredly, they shall wail bitternly over and none too genial fancy, the conning tower into the decentest dozendest short notice. He was a bottlop stoub by the pettiest of beast, wolves, croppis's or coffinnail you might have used by anyone unwary enough

deed ye plaine of the hour not fit and there crops and like can prapsposterus the badfather, the chicken[ pox and an excessively rough and stanks, of Sloppy Sluts plainly on his brother dane in or of Drainophilias) where livland yontide meared with Wolsey under minnshogue's milk brother dane in Annie's Room, Awl Out, Twitchbratschballs, Bombard Street on the Compassionate, called following a poss of the method of copyhold; is in the chalice for us, dugters of men of Calomnequiller's Pravities) from the hobo (who possessed in annacrwatter; whou missed and every breach is wet your fourfootlers saw him and

skuld never do. Malmarriedad he sweated his carbonoxside and their caps awry are legion in your roads in loquacity lunacy, so was struck had purposely torn up Marlborough Place; Cromlechheight and ninetynine years is a being freely is Quick and destroyed the latter. Damb! he told of an ould cup of themselves timing the signal and watch was he did Hansard tell the world, now about her. Begob, he's as their sleep of precoxious scaremakers (scoretaking: Spegulo ne stele from that is, begod. Lift it, druids? Not Hans the university sense of the direction of Humidia a nap for millinary

commas (sometimes called themselves in stage of some the civil or poghue puxy as he made no signs (please to dime! Every nice, missymackenzies! For his manslayer's gunwielder protended towards the redminers riots and bottloggers. Axe on it. Syce ran high. Of eyebrow pencilled, by such as an Excellent Halfcentre if he clopped his pot valiance, this seems at a fair mashed on the invariable broadstretched kerchief cooling his detractors, who, he gave the blubbywail ghoats out to live in Erio. And honey honeysugger phwhtphwht tha Bay and capable of prenanciation. Distributary endings? And all. (Succoth.) So, how palmy date

Sidhe · #**9138** 07-27-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just a logical theory with a lot of cobwebs in it. :yup:

No, that is the current intrepretation of the theory of relativity which is well supported, a scientific 'theory' is as good as fact, as opposed to lessans fantasy.

A theory might have supporting evidence but it's still a theory. You can't say a theory is a fact, or these words wouldn't have two different meanings.

The term is "Scientific Theory" which is quite different from the common english useage of the word 'Theory'. A 'Scientific Theory' is as good as fact, the common english useage 'Theory' is an idea in need of support. You need to stop displaying your ignorance of scientific practice. Stop being as stupid as the typical 'man on the street'.

A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence which distinguishes it from a hunch, or a hypothesis, but there is the possibility that the empirical evidence is incomplete.

And a very real possibility it doesn't exist. Hence the falsifiable criteria that makes any theory a theory, it cannot be true, just empirical.

Not even wrong: a conjecture that cannot be tested empirically and thus is and always will be pure sepculation
Hypothesis: unsupported conjecture that is testable
weak or tentative theory: corroborated hypothesis by testing and peer review etc.
Strong theory: corroborated by many independent scientists and taken as a consensus, eg evolution
Law: A theory that has no observable indications to the contrary, eg gravity, the law that what goes up must come down or of attraction etc, relativity, no mass object can travel or propagate at c. A law is not weaker or stronger than another theory it just is.

I don't know what you're getting at.

Well did try to explain but if it offended you I apologise that was not my intent. Unlike trolls I do have some social grace, don't set out to upset people.

It's fine if you don't want to talk to me though. I'll understand. I have an EQ over 7 million btw.

Sidhe · #**9139** 07-27-2011, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Random text generator, Finnegans Wake:

porto flippant; is told in the unthinking tongue in his cattegut bandolair and wine has it cudgelplayers' country, (probable words, run, march, halt, walk, Wellington Park (at least to the Lord's Bed by one hallowe'en night, may she the skirtmishes endupped. For saxonlootie!) three Enkelchums in His Ceiling Flee Chinx on the remains of the waist! Ho, you worded it, a sidewheel dive somewhere off him still to Cover, Salary Grab, Andy Mac Magnus MacCawley can be ultimendly respunchable for that he called quotation marks) on lallance a disguised exnun, of his ville's indigenous romekeepers, homesweepers, domecreepers, thurum and palate,

collision known as fail til heathersmoke and heer lays dormont from the orangeflavoured mudmound had a trifling selves, amadst camel old knoll and falchioned each flash brides or letts, grant ideas, grunted) all over the day but plumps plebmatically for a person garrotted may rise you bring bouncing brimmers from a bottlop stoub by his footwear, say. No, assuredly, they shall wail bitternly over and none too genial fancy, the conning tower into the decentest dozendest short notice. He was a bottlop stoub by the pettiest of beast, wolves, croppis's or coffinnail you might have used by anyone unwary enough

deed ye plaine of the hour not fit and there crops and like can prapsposterus the badfather, the chicken[ pox and an excessively rough and stanks, of Sloppy Sluts plainly on his brother dane in or of Drainophilias) where livland yontide meared with Wolsey under minnshogue's milk brother dane in Annie's Room, Awl Out, Twitchbratschballs, Bombard Street on the Compassionate, called following a poss of the method of copyhold; is in the chalice for us, dugters of men of Calomnequiller's Pravities) from the hobo (who possessed in annacrwatter; whou missed and every breach is wet your fourfootlers saw him and

skuld never do. Malmarriedad he sweated his carbonoxside and their caps awry are legion in your roads in loquacity lunacy, so was struck had purposely torn up Marlborough Place; Cromlechheight and ninetynine years is a being freely is Quick and destroyed the latter. Damb! he told of an ould cup of themselves timing the signal and watch was he did Hansard tell the world, now about her. Begob, he's as their sleep of precoxious scaremakers (scoretaking: Spegulo ne stele from that is, begod. Lift it, druids? Not Hans the university sense of the direction of Humidia a nap for millinary

commas (sometimes called themselves in stage of some the civil or poghue puxy as he made no signs (please to dime! Every nice, missymackenzies! For his manslayer's gunwielder protended towards the redminers riots and bottloggers. Axe on it. Syce ran high. Of eyebrow pencilled, by such as an Excellent Halfcentre if he clopped his pot valiance, this seems at a fair mashed on the invariable broadstretched kerchief cooling his detractors, who, he gave the blubbywail ghoats out to live in Erio. And honey honeysugger phwhtphwht tha Bay and capable of prenanciation. Distributary endings? And all. (Succoth.) So, how palmy date

I can do noverlous but agremulate. A wellintentoruous sub clout, in all the right plankilousity withulous and worldy and triumptiphous. Well dubbed.

How planey date indeed, how trump the class of the worldy flibs? And by worldy I mean feroberant. Slaterant and incomboboulous. Shuldverous only because it was meriferant and lugunrient.

Angakuk · #**9140** 07-27-2011, 10:53 PM

It was not meriferant. That is an outright lie, canard and libel.

Sidhe · #**9141** 07-27-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am curious: In the 8 years that you have been proselytizing this work, how many people have been convinced?

Vivisectus, I haven't marketed this book. The only people who know about it are those who are on these forums, and you can't use this as a judge.

But there were other forums as well - at least 2 others, and you have been at this for years now. You must have spoken to dozens of people so far?

Not that many people, and the ones I did speak to had their own agendas. Some were Neitzchians, some were objectivists, some were atheists (

), etc. and they were not judging this work objectively. Believe me, no one has taken the time to study this book, no one.

You just say that because to you, studying the book and being utterly convinced are necessarily synonymous! So the answer is none, and it has been years. Is it not perhaps time to change tactics?

I am going to change tactics. I'm not going anymore forums after this one.

No I wouldn't either. All these forums are gash on the whole. Generally I only go to any of these philosophical jibes because I'm bored and have nowt else to do. I wouldn't expect...

Sidhe · #**9142** 07-27-2011, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It was not meriferant. That is an outright lie, canard and libel.

Slankard! I toss my shivt in your generalous malfascent improbabous fals holtrous miner and damn ye sirtpus numbt.

Lie?! you do me slat santrous prilk, fank you. And they mother. Duck off!

Edit: for cromulence.

Angakuk · #**9143** 07-27-2011, 11:11 PM

Shouldn't there be an exclamation point after 'slankard'?

Sidhe · #**9144** 07-27-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Shouldn't there be an exclamation point after 'slankard'?

Goldwald cehrt, I feel so embals now, I was ireferous that I forgot to eclude the mantankerous statery with a clomberant pointard evar.

Good point. I'll get me coaste.

! let me dart a ferk in that pork. It wont falaper shaz.

peacegirl · #**9145** 07-27-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just a logical theory with a lot of cobwebs in it. :yup:

No, that is the current intrepretation of the theory of relativity which is well supported, a scientific 'theory' is as good as fact, as opposed to lessans fantasy.

A theory might have supporting evidence but it's still a theory. You can't say a theory is a fact, or these words wouldn't have two different meanings.

The term is "Scientific Theory" which is quite different from the common english useage of the word 'Theory'. A 'Scientific Theory' is as good as fact, the common english useage 'Theory' is an idea in need of support. You need to stop displaying your ignorance of scientific practice. Stop being as stupid as the typical 'man on the street'.

A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence which distinguishes it from a hunch, or a hypothesis, but there is the possibility that the empirical evidence is incomplete.

And a very real possibility it doesn't exist. Hence the falsifiable criteria that makes any theory a theory, it cannot be true, just empirical.

Not even wrong: a conjecture that cannot be tested empirically and thus is and always will be pure sepculation
Hypothesis: unsupported conjecture that is testable
weak or tentative theory: corroborated hypothesis by testing and peer review etc.
Strong theory: corroborated by many independent scientists and taken as a consensus, eg evolution
Law: A theory that has no observable indications to the contrary, eg gravity, the law that what goes up must come down or of attraction etc, relativity, no mass object can travel or propagate at c. A law is not weaker or stronger than another theory it just is.

I don't know what you're getting at.

Well did try to explain but if it offended you I apologise that was not my intent. Unlike trolls I do have some social grace, don't set out to upset people.

It's fine if you don't want to talk to me though. I'll understand. I have an EQ over 7 million btw.

I'll talk to you, but I don't understand what prompted you to say the things you said to me. I'm not your enemy.

peacegirl · #**9146** 07-27-2011, 11:38 PM