A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this question. People often depend on someone else's judgment of whether a book has merit or not. If you are the main spokesperson in this thread, along with a few others, then what is likely to happen is that people will listen to you and get a bad feeling about the book. This whole thread is not putting Lessans in a good light, not because he doesn't have a discovery, but because people don't believe he does (for various reasons, one being that they don't grasp these principles).

Your reasoning that I've been online for 10 years and no one has yet to come forward and say he has something of value, is flawed. You're doing the very same thing that other people do, which is to get a false picture of the book because you are basing your conclusions on a false premise that there must be nothing to it since no one has agreed in all these years. I should have never discussed this discovery online, because it's not the right venue, as I've stated many times. There are so many gaps in understanding (we haven't gotten past page 58, excluding Chapter Four), even after thousands of pages, that it appears there is nothing more to be said. But that's far from the truth. According to you and others, there is no discovery. That's insane thinking. David thinks the angrier he gets, and the more names he calls me, it will make me leave with my tail between my legs. Whether I leave or not is not going to be because this discovery is not genuine.

Nobody tell peacegirl that the enemies of Lessans are deliberately working to have peacegirl spend her time on FF till the day she dies thus diverting her from her mission resulting in her eventual failure.

Shhhhh, make sure she never figures this out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this question. People often depend on someone else's judgment of whether a book has merit or not. If you are the main spokesperson in this thread, along with a few others, then what is likely to happen is that people will listen to you and get a bad feeling about the book. This whole thread is not putting Lessans in a good light, not because he doesn't have a discovery, but because people don't believe he does (for various reasons, one being that they don't grasp these principles).

So there are imaginary people you think depend on us here at this little forum to decide if the book has merit. That's sad that you have not figured out yet that these forums are not the best way to present this work. Additionally, are such closed minded and dependent people the kind of readers you are looking for in the first place? Why are you worried about those who are so easily influenced by strangers?

Your reasoning that I've been online for 10 years and no one has yet to come forward and say he has something of value, is flawed. You're doing the very same thing that other people do, which is to get a false picture of the book because you are basing your conclusions on a false premise that there must be nothing to it since no one has agreed in all these years. I should have never discussed this discovery online, because it's not the right venue, as I've stated many times. There are so many gaps in understanding (we haven't gotten past page 58, excluding Chapter Four), even after thousands of pages, that it appears there is nothing more to be said. But that's far from the truth. According to you and others, there is no discovery. That's insane thinking. David thinks the angrier he gets, and the more names he calls me, it will make me leave with my tail between my legs. Whether I leave or not is not going to be because this discovery is not genuine.

That's not my reasoning at all because that is fallacious (appeal to numbers).

I do think that the fact that nobody in 10 years has joined your grassroots effort, or found the ideas compelling, is indicative that you aren't up to the task of defending the book, that you have chosen the wrong venues to present it, and that the book is not compelling to the people you've exposed to it thus far.

Your reasoning that people will value the content of the book more if they pay for it is flawed. I already told you I think you should make it widely available for free...that way people who are not influenced by marketing, and not influenced by what others think and say (you know, the kind of open minded freethinkers you claim to be looking for), can find it and read it and decide if the content has value without any influence at all....including the influence of "sunk cost".

[thedoc]

If the Book is of real value to all mankind, and is recognized as such, there will be rewards aplenty after. The excessive up front 'sunk cost' will be irrevelant and unnecessary to guarantee interest. It would be in your best interest to make the book avalable to as many people as soon as possible to achieve the results in the near future. That you are now with-holding it indicates that you really don't believe in it as much as you claim. Playing is close seems to mean that you are just trying to collect as much money as possible before the word gets out as to what the book really is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this question. People often depend on someone else's judgment of whether a book has merit or not. If you are the main spokesperson in this thread, along with a few others, then what is likely to happen is that people will listen to you and get a bad feeling about the book. This whole thread is not putting Lessans in a good light, not because he doesn't have a discovery, but because people don't believe he does (for various reasons, one being that they don't grasp these principles).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So there are imaginary people you think depend on us here at this little forum to decide if the book has merit. That's sad that you have not figured out yet that these forums are not the best way to present this work. Additionally, are such closed minded and dependent people the kind of readers you are looking for in the first place? Why are you worried about those who are so easily influenced by strangers?

If I was worried about strangers, I wouldn't be here. Close-minded and dependent people comprise most of the population, although there are some who do think independently. Unfortunately, it is often the case that those who think they are being open-minded are really not as open-minded as they think they are. I know this isn't the best place to present this work, but I can't move any faster than I already am since certain things have to be in place before I can introduce this work on a larger scale. I also know I'm not making best use of my time, but this will change hopefully very soon.

Your reasoning that I've been online for 10 years and no one has yet to come forward and say he has something of value, is flawed. You're doing the very same thing that other people do, which is to get a false picture of the book because you are basing your conclusions on a false premise that there must be nothing to it since no one has agreed in all these years. I should have never discussed this discovery online, because it's not the right venue, as I've stated many times. There are so many gaps in understanding (we haven't gotten past page 58, excluding Chapter Four), even after thousands of pages, that it appears there is nothing more to be said. But that's far from the truth. According to you and others, there is no discovery. That's insane thinking. David thinks the angrier he gets, and the more names he calls me, it will make me leave with my tail between my legs. Whether I leave or not is not going to be because this discovery is not genuine.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not my reasoning at all because that is fallacious (appeal to numbers).

I do think that the fact that nobody in 10 years has joined your grassroots effort, or found the ideas compelling, is indicative that you aren't up to the task of defending the book, that you have chosen the wrong venues to present it, and that the book is not compelling to the people you've exposed to it thus far.

I never invited people to join a grassroots effort because I didn't establish one. It was just a thought. And as far as finding the ideas compelling, of course people are going to resist his discovery at first, especially the discovery on the senses. He knew this wasn't going to be easy. As far as the rest of the book, no one in all these years has actually studied this book, so to use the years I've been online against me, as if somehow this proves that Lessans doesn't have anything valuable, is a very big mistake, although I do agree that this is not the right venue.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your reasoning that people will value the content of the book more if they pay for it is flawed. I already told you I think you should make it widely available for free...that way people who are not influenced by marketing, and not influenced by what others think and say (you know, the kind of open minded freethinkers you claim to be looking for), can find it and read it and decide if the content has value without any influence at all....including the influence of "sunk cost".

I cannot give the book away. I myself have to pay for the book. If it costs me $15, I could sell it at a lower price than any of the online vendors and still make something for all my effort. Why shouldn't I earn some money on something that I worked hard to compile and bring to public awareness? We are living in a capitalist society, and just because this knowledge is for the benefit of our world, why should I have to be the sacrificial lamb? The cost of the book is really nothing compared to what you would be getting. So as far as "sunk cost" goes, most things that are incurred is money gone, and a lot of money is wasted on stuff that doesn't matter at the end of the day.

[LadyShea]

I've already told you, you can create a .pdf for only the cost of the software (there are ways to do this for free as well, but I don't want to confuse you) and give it away, or sell it for a few bucks to get the "knowledge" out there to everyone and it would be mostly money in your pocket. People that want a hardcopy could certainly then ask and pay for a POD.

You are stuck in the past when it comes to disseminating information.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never invited people to join a grassroots effort because I didn't establish one.

LOL, grassroots efforts do not require an invite or establishment. Grasroots is about person to person communication and support gathering by word of mouth, and then individuals choosing to band together for a cause they commonly believe in.

And anyway, I only used the term because you brought it up first

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea what you're missing LadyShea. You can be as stubborn as you want, but you will miss out on an amazing work. If you had not used your limited knowledge to judge this work, and had given him the benefit of the doubt (which you have not done), you may have desired to become part of an important grassroots effort, but instead you will remain part of the problem due to your misplaced skepticism. I am not saying to agree with something you don't, but you don't understand this work the way you think you do, and to say that this one chapter is not worth purchasing the book for, shows me the extreme ignorance I am dealing with in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not assuming anything. Reflection is empirically observed and can be measured, and has physical laws regarding it....you know the Laws of Reflection?

So you disagree with the laws of physics regarding reflection and transmission, and are saying that light changes its properties when it comes into contact with matter that doesn't absorb it. Since you are saying that you think the laws of physics are wrong in this regard and must be different for your model to work, then your model violates the laws of physics.

Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?
Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?

No, there is no assumption, anywhere by anyone that "this pattern" of light gets reflected and travels. That's your retarded strawman yet again.

Light gets reflected and travels, yes. That is a known and proven fact.

I didn't say white light doesn't get reflected; the only thing that doesn't get reflected is non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of absorbed light. And it's not a retarded strawman.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've already told you, you can create a .pdf for only the cost of the software (there are ways to do this for free as well, but I don't want to confuse you) and give it away, or sell it for a few bucks to get the "knowledge" out there to everyone and it would be mostly money in your pocket. People that want a hardcopy could certainly then ask and pay for a POD.

You are stuck in the past when it comes to disseminating information.

I'm going to do that, for sure. I already have a formatter who is sending me the .pdf. Then I can do whatever I want with it. I will write to Amazon and try to get on their kindle program even though I personally would prefer reading a 600 page book from a hard copy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, grassroots efforts do not require an invite or establishment. Grasroots is about person to person communication and support gathering by word of mouth, and then individuals choosing to band together for a cause they commonly believe in.

And anyway, I only used the term because you brought it up first

When someone of influence recognizes the significance of this discovery, it will spread like wildfire through word of mouth, but until then it will be tough going, which isn't surprising considering the claims. But anything worth its salt takes time to be accepted.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say white light doesn't get reflected; the only thing that doesn't get reflected is non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of absorbed light. And it's not a retarded strawman.

Once again, you are clearly saying that light changes its properties when it comes into contact with matter that doesn't absorb it. And that light does not follow the laws of physics, specifically the Laws of Reflection.

Since this is the case:

Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?
Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?


The retarded strawman is the part where you think that we assume that light carries or brings a pattern or image with it or that patterns or images get reflected. You know this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When someone of influence recognizes the significance of this discovery, it will spread like wildfire through word of mouth.

It would be interesting to hear the 'In Crowd' quoting lines from the book. When My older daughter was attending college the rage was quoting lines from Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail'. But unstead of laughter it would be puzzled looks and blank stares.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When someone of influence recognizes the significance of this discovery, it will spread like wildfire through word of mouth, but until then it will be tough going, which isn't surprising considering the claims. But anything worth its salt takes time to be accepted.

Wait, someone of influence? Why are you appealing to authoritative influence after decrying the lack of independent thought and the perceived "dependence" on influential people?

Are you really telling me that if influential people agree with you, and help influence others to their way of thinking, that's a-okay, but if influential people disagree with you and help influence others to their way of thinking that's closed-minded group think?

Do you think that could be considered hypocritical?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your thinking is so off I don't know what to say. Think about it Angakuk. If Lessans turns out to be right and his discovery, which are really God's laws recognized on a global scale, helps to bring forward the very thing we've been hoping and praying for since time immemorial, I would not change the course that Lessans took, for there is the very real possibility (I'll be tentative there), that he would not have pursued the path that would have led him to these findings.

If it turns out that Lessans was right I will gladly eat my words. Hell, I'll even eat my hat too. However, I am not rushing out to buy the steak sauce any time soon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So give it up Angakuk, you're wrong in your analysis that he could have achieved more or done better. He achieved more than many Ph.D's. There's nothing magical about getting a formal education, as if it has some special power to make someone great. On the other hand, there's nothing that would stop a person from utilizing what he's learned from a formal education. I never said that there aren't a many great contributions to our world from people who went to college, but college isn't the end all, which is what you're implying. You are missing my whole point.

At no time have I said, or implied, that college is the end all. I have merely pointed out that your original claim to know that Lessans would not have made his discovery had he gone to college is something that neither you or Lessans can know to be true. However, I do actually agree that if Lessans had gone to college he probably would not have made this discovery. If he had actually graduated from high school and college it is likely that in the process he would have learned enough so as to prevent him from making the mistakes that characterize his work. No guaranty mind you. There are plenty of well educated crackpots out running around.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the irony is that the people participating think they are doing science a favor.

I don't think that anyone here thinks they are doing a science a favor. Some may think they are doing you a favor by engaging you, but I suspect that most of us are just having fun at your expense.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait, someone of influence? Why are you appealing to authoritative influence after decrying the lack of independent thought and the perceived "dependence" on influential people?

Are you really telling me that if influential people agree with you, and help influence others to their way of thinking, that's a-okay, but if influential people disagree with you and help influence others to their way of thinking that's closed-minded group think?

Do you think that could be considered hypocritical?

Who are you, Lady Shea, to talk about hypocrisy? You are the biggest hypocrite here. Just ask mickthinks.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why am I so unsurprised by your questions, which don't even play a part in Lessans' proof. I will not cowtow to your questions which don't provide anything other than your version of truth. You are a very smug individual, which poses a serious problem in a thread like this, and makes it doubly hard to deal with the subtle prejudices you hold dear.

She called you dear.

[LadyShea]

mickthinks hasn't accused me of hypocrisy! He has indicated that I am dangerously close to not proving that I am not a hypocrite is all.

[Angakuk]

WELL EXCUSE ME!

[thedoc]

Picky, picky, picky.

[Spacemonkey]

You can't ruin things for everyone without proper attention to detail.

[thedoc]

This needs to be verified by Micthinks, otherwise it's an unsupported assertion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait, someone of influence? Why are you appealing to authoritative influence after decrying the lack of independent thought and the perceived "dependence" on influential people?

Are you really telling me that if influential people agree with you, and help influence others to their way of thinking, that's a-okay, but if influential people disagree with you and help influence others to their way of thinking that's closed-minded group think?

Do you think that could be considered hypocritical?

I'm not appealing to someone of influence to determine the validity of this book. Rather, I need someone of influence to help me market the book as I don't have the budget. I am going to try all different avenues, but when someone is an unknown it makes it especially difficult.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This needs to be verified by Micthinks, otherwise it's an unsupported assertion.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - Being trusted is a kind of privilege

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not appealing to someone of influence to determine the validity of this book. Rather, I need someone of influence to help me market the book as I don't have the budget. I am going to try all different avenues, but when someone is an unknown it makes it especially difficult.

I'm not sure which hurts the book more. The scatter-brained ideas or the turgid prose that almost exceeds the inanity within. No one would back the book for business reasons. peacegirl, I hope you still have your looks cause your gonna need to find a rich sugar daddy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - Being trusted is a kind of privilege

OK by me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not appealing to someone of influence to determine the validity of this book. Rather, I need someone of influence to help me market the book as I don't have the budget. I am going to try all different avenues, but when someone is an unknown it makes it especially difficult.

So you just want some celebrity to prostitute themselves to help you sell books to the unsuspecting suckers. It doesn't matter that there is nothing of substance in the book you are just a money grubbing whore. You shoud just strap a mattress on your back and give the books away along with a cheap bang, 40 bucks, maybe, if you put anything into it. You say you don't need to validate the book, just sell it, you're just in it for the money, just like Lessans was in it for the joke.