A revolution in thought - Page 711

naturalist.atheist · #**17751** 05-30-2012, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

Because NA is repeating a mantra and eventually people get brainwashed. But it really doesn't matter. If you're not brainwashed, fine. I can admit being wrong. But I do believe you are repeating his words down to the last syllable. He says" You're mentally ill. Go get help. You say: You're mentally ill. Go get help. Are you that clueless?

peacegirl if repeating a mantra convinced anyone, you would have convinced thousands. It is funny, because your constant repetition of your irrational statements it what has convinced everyone that you are insane.

Spacemonkey · #**17752** 05-30-2012, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

Because NA is repeating a mantra and eventually people get brainwashed. But it really doesn't matter. If you're not brainwashed, fine. I can admit being wrong. But I do believe you are repeating his words down to the last syllable. He says" You're mentally ill. Go get help. You say: You're mentally ill. Go get help. Are you that clueless?

That's not modelling his words you idiot. It's not imitation. It's simply expressing the same conclusion that you admitted we've each independently arrived at. How many different ways are there of telling you that you are in fact mentally ill, and that you really do need to seek help? Again, I've used those same words long before even beginning to post here.

naturalist.atheist · #**17753** 05-30-2012, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

Because NA is repeating a mantra and eventually people get brainwashed. But it really doesn't matter. If you're not brainwashed, fine. I can admit being wrong. But I do believe you are repeating his words down to the last syllable. He says" You're mentally ill. Go get help. You say: You're mentally ill. Go get help. Are you that clueless?

That's not modelling his words you idiot. It's not imitation. It's simply expressing the same conclusion that you admitted we've each independently arrived at. How many different ways are there of telling you that you are in fact mentally ill, and that you really do need to seek help? Again, I've used those same words long before even beginning to post here.

Spacemonkey, she just doesn't know any better. Everything is a persecution to her. She could find a conspiracy among grains of sand directed at her, she is that batshit insane. Among the many many mental problems she has, I strongly suspect schizophrenia. I'm pretty sure she inherited it from her dad.

Angakuk · #**17754** 05-30-2012, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word you are looking for thedoc is "inspired".

I believe that Lessans claimed to have been 'inspired', do you dare to think that you are on the same level as the great pool hustler and part time savior of the world.

Not at all. My pool game is well below that of even the average pool hustler. On the other hand, I am probably at least as effective as Lessans at saving the world.

Yes, but you are doing it 'Full Time' and not as a joke.

What? I'm a preacher. Don't you know that we only work one day week? You call that full time?

And on gods day off no less.

Somebody has to mind the store while God is off fishing, or golfing, or whatever it is that God does on God's day off.

naturalist.atheist · #**17755** 05-30-2012, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word you are looking for thedoc is "inspired".

I believe that Lessans claimed to have been 'inspired', do you dare to think that you are on the same level as the great pool hustler and part time savior of the world.

Not at all. My pool game is well below that of even the average pool hustler. On the other hand, I am probably at least as effective as Lessans at saving the world.

Yes, but you are doing it 'Full Time' and not as a joke.

What? I'm a preacher. Don't you know that we only work one day week? You call that full time?

And on gods day off no less.

Somebody has to mind the store while God is off fishing, or golfing, or whatever it is that God does on God's day off.

So are you the one that keeps an eye on NGC 4419?

Angakuk · #**17756** 05-30-2012, 04:41 AM

That is not my department.

naturalist.atheist · #**17757** 05-30-2012, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is not my department.

How provincial.

Angakuk · #**17758** 05-30-2012, 05:13 AM

I didn't say that no one was keeping an eye on it. It is just not in my area of responsibility. Do you expect to purchase power tools in the shoe department at Sears?

BTW, I used to be in Ladies Underwear, but I got transferred. To many complaints from the ladies' husbands. No complaints from the ladies though.

thedoc · #**17759** 05-30-2012, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

BTW, I used to be in Ladies Underwear.

Do you really need to post about your wardrobe? Or are you a lumberjack?

Angakuk · #**17760** 05-30-2012, 05:54 AM

I'm a lumberjack and I'm alright. I sleep all day and I work all night.

peacegirl · #**17761** 05-30-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis.

This is not true, Peacegirl. It's not even possible. I reached my diagnosis long before I came to FF or read a single post from NA. I can prove this. This is exactly why I was asking you who was responsible for my alleged brainwashing.

Because NA is repeating a mantra and eventually people get brainwashed. But it really doesn't matter. If you're not brainwashed, fine. I can admit being wrong. But I do believe you are repeating his words down to the last syllable. He says" You're mentally ill. Go get help. You say: You're mentally ill. Go get help. Are you that clueless?

That's not modelling his words you idiot. It's not imitation. It's simply expressing the same conclusion that you admitted we've each independently arrived at. How many different ways are there of telling you that you are in fact mentally ill, and that you really do need to seek help? Again, I've used those same words long before even beginning to post here.

Uh uh, ain't gonna happen Spacemonkey. You're not going to call me an idiot if you want to talk to me. I know you'll say in two seconds I will talk to you again, but you'll see that my disgust will override my desire to talk to you. And by the way you never started insulting me until long after NA started posting. If you disagree, show me the posts.

peacegirl · #**17762** 05-30-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm's link

The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to tests its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the ‘respectable thinker’ from the crank. The original content of his theory does not.

There you have it, peacegirl

This passage is certainly the take-home point for peacegirl in this context, but more broadly it should be noted that Feyerabend had very rebellious opinions against science and scientists, whom he scorned as "human ants" in his essay, On Epistemological Anarchism. Fundamentally, Mr. F was a dadaist. More power to him, I say. :yup:

Not that I necessarily agree with him, at least not totally, though I find parts of his arguments to be very good.

This does not relate to Lessans at all. He was not rebellious just for the sake of it, nor did he believe that scientists were human ants. This whole thread is getting more and more distorted by the second.

Spacemonkey · #**17763** 05-30-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uh uh, ain't gonna happen Spacemonkey. You're not going to call me an idiot if you want to talk to me. I know you'll say in two seconds I will talk to you again, but you'll see that my disgust will override my desire to talk to you.

Really? You're definitely not going to respond to me any more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the way you never started talking like this until you weren't satisfied with my answers regarding photons, and this was long after NA started posting.

What answers regarding photons? You never gave me any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you disagree, show me the posts.

You really should stop trusting your memory.

Free will versus determinism - Page 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by From October 2010

Hello again, Janis. I see you're back online again and repeating the exact same mistakes. Accusing people who disagree with you of not understanding or of not even reading the material, misusing terminology even after correction, playing the victim, accusing people of bias, ignoring everyone's opinion that the book is very poorly written and instead blaming the readers for not giving Lessans a chance, and opting for screeds of cut & paste in place of actually explaining anything yourself.

You've been at this literally for years now and have presented the same material in exactly the same flawed manner at over a dozen different forums, and yet every single time you've received the same overwhelmingly negative response. It is my serious and honest opinion that you should cease this behavior immediately and seek professional help from a qualified mental health professional. You have an unhealthy emotional attachment to this material, leading to disturbingly obsessive/compulsive, repetitive, and completely unproductive behavior which, by your own admission, takes up a great deal of your time and energy.

Seriously, seek help. It's time to let Lessans and his book go.

Spacemonkey · #**17764** 05-30-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at the eye to see something, but the problem is that everyone thinks light has to travel to the eye in order to be interacting with it, or we're violating the laws of physics. According to efferent vision, the instant an object is in one's field of view, and it's bright enough to be seen, the light is at the eye because of how efferent vision works which is the complete opposite of the way afferent vision works. That's why he said light only needs to be surrounding the object for it to be seen.

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**17765** 05-30-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**17766** 05-30-2012, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

LOL, not the poster child for that. True Believers are a dime a dozen.

You are the poster child for tenacity in talking to people who think you are nuts about your beliefs. Even Jehovah's Witnesses stop coming around after awhile.

I can't say this has been easy but I believe Lessans was right (in spite of how it appears) so I stand firmly in my conviction. Plus, talking here gives me a break while reviewing the book, and this is good for me because it slows me down and I've caught mistakes this way, as I've said before.

peacegirl · #**17767** 05-30-2012, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong.

I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks that the things Lessans says are wrong just because he said them. Rather, they think the things he says are wrong because they are wrong.

But it's gotten to the point where the minute I say Lessans said something, they react impulsively, without batting an eye.

Another unsupported claim. You have no way of knowing how much thought someone has put into a post.

I didn't say people put no effort into responding, but their response is faulty, and the reason it is partly faulty is based on all of the previous posts. You cannot tell me that this thread is unbiased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Quote:

Yes, if she was truly pointing out a flaw in the premises, but she's doing no such thing. LadyShea is bringing up trivialities which have nothing to do with the major concepts. She is so anal, she thinks that the things she is pointing out actually negate the entire book. I'm sure she's gloating with pride at what a wonderful sleuth she is, and how her imagined red flags actually mean anything. :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans' mistakes, even the small ones, inasmuch as they reflect on his competence and credibility, are anything but trivial. Molecules of light, trillions of babies, etc. all provide reasons for questioning that competence and credibility.

That was exactly the motivation of LadyShea, and obviously she has convinced you, like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis. She is out to prove that these small trivialities invalidate his claims. It's nuttier than the fundamentalists who are trying in their own way to prove their case. She is no different than a fundie, but do you think she sees this? Of course not. No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

This is another example of your delusional thinking, and a mistake (or deliberate lie) you repeat over and over. Nobody here convinced anyone else to dismiss Lessans. We all independently evaluated the work and arrived at the same conclusion. His claims are WRONG. They conflict decisively with reality. It is REALITY that convinced us. Everyone here knows this, and arrived at their conclusions about Lessans' claims independently, because everyone here is educated, unlike you and Lessans. Now, care to take another whack at explaining Mars and NASA? No, huh? :pat:

That's not true. Until there is further experimentation, your independent evaluation is anything but objective. What I am experiencing is a gang of people who have banded together in the name of science, and to throw out any dissenters.

What further experimentation needs to be done? Delayed-time seeing, and all its implications, have been empirically demonstrated for hundreds of years. You have been told about the moons of Jupiter, about NASA and Mars, about lasers and the moon, about special relativity, about earth-bound experiments that establish both the speed of light and delayed-time seeing, about GPS devices, about the Hubble telescope, about gravitational lensing, about on and on and on and on. Every single one of these experiments refutes Lessans. The truth is that in your insane mind, even if an infinite number of experiments were done and all refuted Lessans, Lessans would still be right. Isn't that a fact?

GPS devices? What in the world does this have to do with how we see? A lot of these experiments measure the speed of light but don't prove that we see in delayed time. You are clumping all of these things together to make your case for afferent vision look more convincing.

As usual, you are either gob-smackingly stupid, or a lying little asshat. (I personally maintain you are both). Of COURSE all these things prove we see in delayed time; the speed of light is able to be measured, because of the time delay in seeing the light. In these experiments, every one of them, if there were no delay in seeing the light, there would be no measurement of light speed! Hence we could conclude that light travels instantaneously.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand because I never said light doesn't travel, but it's white light that we see when we are measuring its speed. We can never get an image of an object (which consists of mass) anywhere if that object is not in visual range. And if you don't get the difference between the two, you're in total denial after all this time.

peacegirl · #**17768** 05-30-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very easy to conclude that there is no other explanation because of all the years of experimentation, yet this is a cautionary tale that seeing is not always believing, especially when it is easy for an outcome to fit our preconceptions.

Yes, it's very easy to form a belief on the basis of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Easy for everyone but you. This entire thread is a cautionary tale, just not in the way you'd like to think.

I didn't realize the nerve I would hit when I shared his second discovery. There will be no resolution here even if you believe that the preponderance of evidence is enough to throw Lessans' observations out. I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The only nerve you hit is the nerve of educated and honest people having contempt for willfully ignorant liars, and feeling the need to set the record straight and combat your willful, dishonest ignorance, to say nothing of the breathtaking arrogance exhibited by one so ill-informed and dishonest as yourself.

I also didn't realize that this claim would cause such a disruption because of the implications. That's why you're so angry because you like your worldview and you don't want anyone messing with it. In fact, you are so protective of it that you react with major hostility which clearly indicates your emotional attachment, otherwise you wouldn't act this way even if I was 100% wrong. I'm sorry that I have disrupted your level of comfort in such a profound way, but I have to be true to myself.

peacegirl · #**17769** 05-30-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uh uh, ain't gonna happen Spacemonkey. You're not going to call me an idiot if you want to talk to me. I know you'll say in two seconds I will talk to you again, but you'll see that my disgust will override my desire to talk to you.

Really? You're definitely not going to respond to me any more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the way you never started talking like this until you weren't satisfied with my answers regarding photons, and this was long after NA started posting.

What answers regarding photons? You never gave me any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you disagree, show me the posts.

You really should stop trusting your memory.

Free will versus determinism - Page 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by From October 2010

Hello again, Janis. I see you're back online again and repeating the exact same mistakes. Accusing people who disagree with you of not understanding or of not even reading the material, misusing terminology even after correction, playing the victim, accusing people of bias, ignoring everyone's opinion that the book is very poorly written and instead blaming the readers for not giving Lessans a chance, and opting for screeds of cut & paste in place of actually explaining anything yourself.

You've been at this literally for years now and have presented the same material in exactly the same flawed manner at over a dozen different forums, and yet every single time you've received the same overwhelmingly negative response. It is my serious and honest opinion that you should cease this behavior immediately and seek professional help from a qualified mental health professional. You have an unhealthy emotional attachment to this material, leading to disturbingly obsessive/compulsive, repetitive, and completely unproductive behavior which, by your own admission, takes up a great deal of your time and energy.

Seriously, seek help. It's time to let Lessans and his book go.

I will defend myself if I feel the need. I will not engage in conversation about the book with you unless you stop this behavior. I am asking you to please don't care about me so much. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have no clue why you're here. Are you suffering from some kind of mental condition that you need to rescue me? Seriously, you're the one that needs to be evaluated by a professional because people don't ordinarily engage in useless activities unless there is some kind of payoff.

Spacemonkey · #**17770** 05-30-2012, 12:58 PM

...then responds to me again 44 minutes later.

Spacemonkey · #**17771** 05-30-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will defend myself if I feel the need. I will not engage in conversation about the book with you unless you stop this behavior. I am asking you to please don't care about me so much. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have no clue why you're here. Are you suffering from some kind of mental condition that you need to rescue me? Seriously, you're the one that needs to be evaluated by a professional because people don't ordinarily engage in useless activities unless there is some kind of payoff.

You've forgotten why I'm here yet again, haven't you?

What have I repeatedly told you the payoff is for me? What was my answer for why I am here the last thousand or so times you've asked me? Can you remember?

Are you at least going to drop this ridiculous garbage about me being influenced by and copying NA, now that I've provided a quote predating my arrival here at FF proving your claim about me wrong?

naturalist.atheist · #**17772** 05-30-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I'm sure you will turn me into a poster child of someone who held onto a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

LOL, not the poster child for that. True Believers are a dime a dozen.

You are the poster child for tenacity in talking to people who think you are nuts about your beliefs. Even Jehovah's Witnesses stop coming around after awhile.

I can't say this has been easy but I believe Lessans was right (in spite of how it appears) so I stand firmly in my conviction. Plus, talking here gives me a break while reviewing the book, and this is good for me because it slows me down and I've caught mistakes this way, as I've said before.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that I completely understand, anything is preferable to reading Lessans book. Even going to a forum where everyone thinks you're insane and constantly rubs your nose in it. Where they say intolerable things about you father and ridicule his life's work. Quite right, his book is that bad.

peacegirl · #**17773** 05-30-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...then responds to me again 44 minutes later.

I prefaced my response with "I will defend myself". Do you have comprehension issues? An emphatic, YES.

peacegirl · #**17774** 05-30-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will defend myself if I feel the need. I will not engage in conversation about the book with you unless you stop this behavior. I am asking you to please don't care about me so much. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have no clue why you're here. Are you suffering from some kind of mental condition that you need to rescue me? Seriously, you're the one that needs to be evaluated by a professional because people don't ordinarily engage in useless activities unless there is some kind of payoff.

You've forgotten why I'm here yet again, haven't you?

What have I repeatedly told you the payoff is for me? What was my answer for why I am here the last thousand or so times you've asked me? Can you remember?

It doesn't make sense Spacemonkey. I'm sorry, it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you at least going to drop this ridiculous garbage about me being influenced by and copying NA, now that I've provided a quote predating my arrival here at FF proving your claim about me wrong?

Show me the posts and I will do just that.

naturalist.atheist · #**17775** 05-30-2012, 02:45 PM

Talk about a senior moment, Spacemonkey shows peacegirl the quote, and then peacegirl asks for a quote.