A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add that I have no desire to continue the conversation that we had for an entire year, but I will give you an update from time to time, if possible. I am putting Lessans' audio online with an ebook to go with it. I'm giving the first chapter for free with the audio, so people will know whether they want to continue or not. I have worked so hard on this, and I believe it is going to change our world in a positive way. I hope you are curious as to what is ahead. One thing is for certain. No one on my website is ever going to call me names, or call Lessans' names. They will be banned from the discussion. I've been there and done that, and I have no desire for a repeat performance.

I'm sorry to hear that you are still wasting your time, energy, and money on this deluded nonsense. At least you've learned that your father's material needs to be shielded from open and critical discussion. Do you know why you are here updating us? Because you must surely be aware by now that everyone here places you somewhere on a spectrum between deluded fundamentalist and certifiably insane. Please don't allow your commitment to your father's work to compromise your financial security or your own health.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm sorry to hear that you are still wasting your time, energy, and money on this deluded nonsense. At least you've learned that your father's material needs to be shielded from open and critical discussion. Do you know why you are here updating us? Because you must surely be aware by now that everyone here places you somewhere on a spectrum between deluded fundamentalist and certifiably insane. Please don't allow your commitment to your father's work to compromise your financial security or your own health.

This is not a critical discussion and it never has been. You can think otherwise, but it really doesn't matter. You are never going to dissuade me from my mission of bringing this knowledge brought to light. Obviously, you're not going to buy the ebook and audio, but others will. It is YOU who will be left behind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a critical discussion and it never has been.

Of course it has been. What do you think "critical discussion" means? Do you deny that people here have raised criticisms of your father's ideas? (I'm not asking if you agree with those criticisms or think they have merit.) Do you deny that you would be shielding those ideas from such criticism by allowing discussion on your website only amongst those people (as yet undiscovered) who agree with his views?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it has been. What do you think "critical discussion" means? Do you deny that people here have raised criticisms of your father's ideas? (I'm not asking if you agree with those criticisms or think they have merit.)

No, they do not have merit. I have said all along that his claim about the eyes can be empirically tested. All of the refutations are circumstantial. There is no definite proof that his claim is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you deny that you would be shielding those ideas from such criticism by allowing discussion on your website only amongst those people (as yet undiscovered) who agree with his views?

Not at all. I will demand that the people joining the forum have either read the book or listened to the audio. Most of the people in here did not read the book, but instead tried to make the book sound ridiculous by taking certain passages out of context. No more.

In fact, there's no point in arguing with people who do not have a complete understanding of how this new world is possible (because they have not read the book in its entirety), so it's a total waste of time. You couldn't get off of the one question regarding presuppositions. You are so sure that you're right and you're not.

As far as where absorbed light and non-absorbed light go after striking an object, this really has nothing to do with how the eyes work, so as far as I'm concerned (as it relates to the book), it's a non-issue.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they do not have merit. I have said all along that his claim about the eyes can be empirically tested. All of the refutations are circumstantial. There is no definite proof that his claim is inaccurate.

As I said, I was not asking you about their merit. I was pointing out that this has been a critical discussion, and you were wrong to claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I will demand that the people joining the forum have either read the book or listened to the audio. Most of the people in here did not read the book, but instead tried to make the book sound ridiculous by taking certain passages out of context. No more.

In fact, there's no point in arguing with people who do not have a complete understanding of how this new world is possible (because they have not read the book in its entirety), so it's a total waste of time. You couldn't get off of the one question regarding presuppositions. You are so sure that you're right and you're not.

As far as where absorbed light and non-absorbed light go after striking an object, this really has nothing to do with how the eyes work, so as far as I'm concerned (as it relates to the book), it's a non-issue.

Again, you are not addressing my point. You said that only those who see your father's ideas as valid and who are interested in spreading them will be welcome to participate on your forum. This will obviously shield his ideas from criticism by only allowing discussion amongst those who are already in agreement with his views. (Of course so far there is only one such person on the planet.) This is a smart move on your part, as you know full well that these ideas cannot withstand any kind of critical scrutiny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As I said, I was not asking you about their merit. I was pointing out that this has been a critical discussion, and you were wrong to claim otherwise.

Of course you are talking about their merit. You are positive Lessans is wrong because you give MERIT to the conventional belief on light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I will demand that the people joining the forum have either read the book or listened to the audio. Most of the people in here did not read the book, but instead tried to make the book sound ridiculous by taking certain passages out of context. No more.

In fact, there's no point in arguing with people who do not have a complete understanding of how this new world is possible (because they have not read the book in its entirety), so it's a total waste of time. You couldn't get off of the one question regarding presuppositions. You are so sure that you're right and you're not.

As far as where absorbed light and non-absorbed light go after striking an object, this really has nothing to do with how the eyes work, so as far as I'm concerned (as it relates to the book), it's a non-issue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, you are not addressing my point.

Before I move on, where am I not addressing your point? I have bent over backwards to address your point.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said that only those who see your father's ideas as valid and who are interested in spreading them will be welcome to participate on your forum. This will obviously shield his ideas from criticism by only allowing discussion amongst those who are already in agreement with his views. (Of course so far there is only one such person on the planet.) This is a smart move on your part, as you know full well that these ideas cannot withstand any kind of critical scrutiny.

I have a feeling that it is you that will have a hard time admitting that you were wrong all along. I only hope that won't stop you from carefully listening to Lessans, and if there is more need for proof, I'm game. Let's get this done so we can have a better world. That has been my only intention all along.

[LadyShea]

So get it done, who's stopping you?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[...]if there is more need for proof, I'm game. Let's get this done so we can have a better world. That has been my only intention all along.

There really isn't need for more proof, especially when your referring to Lessans ideas on vision. Every empirical test that has been run has been consistent with the scientific model of light and inconsistent with Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So get it done, who's stopping you?

Nothing is stopping me. I'm waiting for the web designer to get it done. It will be done within a couple of days. I do want to thank you LadyShea. Because of your input I took out a couple of sentences that were not necessary.
As far as plagiarism, which everyone brought up, I checked things out, and I believe everything I included is considered "fair use".

[LadyShea]

Your web designer must be incompetent. You've had him working on this for how long now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

There really isn't need for more proof, especially when your referring to Lessans ideas on vision. Every empirical test that has been run has been consistent with the scientific model of light and inconsistent with Lessans.

Not true specious. There are loopholes. Now that the established theory is being contested, I hope that, in the name of science, more empirical testing can be done. I can't do this myself, so I am depending scientists to take this knowledge seriously. Only time will tell if Lessans was right regarding the eyes. As far as his proof of determinism, there is no modal fallacy or tautology if you understand the proof. I hope that scientists take a careful look at his findings even if he didn't come to his conclusions the conventional way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your web designer must be incompetent. You've had him working on this for how long now?

LadyShea, why are you saying this? What is your motive?

[LadyShea]

I am pointing out the obvious and stating a fact. My motive is to do just that. You talked about your website being designed over a year ago.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your web designer must be incompetent. You've had him working on this for how long now?

Or you are talking to a delusional individual.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pointing out the obvious and stating a fact. My motive is to do just that. You talked about your website being designed over a year ago.

And I meant what I said. The time has arrived, and now I'm moving forward with this. I couldn't create a website without having a product first.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Or you are talking to a delusional individual.

You are not going to start this again. It is YOU who has a problem. For some reason, you can't deal with the fact that this is a valid discovery. I am putting you on ignore. I could care less how hard you will try to make me look bad, as long as I don't see them. They are all lies and have nothing to do with my mission to bring important knowledge to light. Good bye.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To tell you the truth, that is why I came back to this forum. I wanted to make sure you knew that I am grateful that you confronted me with your questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hello everyone,

... you are the most nasty group I've ever met ...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to make sure you knew that I am grateful that you confronted me with your questions.

Too bad you were never able to answer a single one of them, then.

Like this: How did the rover Curiosity get to Mars, peacegirl? NASA calculated its trajectory according to delayed-time seeing of the reflected light of Mars. If Lessans were right, the rover would have missed its target by thousands of miles. But, it made a pinpoint perfect landing, based on caclucaltions that Silly Seymour contested.

How do you expalain that?

Oh, wait. That is one of the hundreds of questions you claim to be "grateful" for, yet never even came close to answering, and never will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

There really isn't need for more proof, especially when your referring to Lessans ideas on vision. Every empirical test that has been run has been consistent with the scientific model of light and inconsistent with Lessans.

That's not true Specious. You are basing your ideas on what you believe to be true, but science has not tested efferent vision based on Lessans' claims. You can't say that something isn't true without a careful analysis and testing, and this has never been done.

It is very easy for an experiment of this size and scope to confirm what everyone already believes is an absolute fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Too bad you were never able to answer a single one of them, then.

Like this: How did the rover Curiosity get to Mars, peacegirl? NASA calculated its trajectory according to delayed-time seeing of the reflected light of Mars. If Lessans were right, the rover would have missed its target by thousands of miles. But, it made a pinpoint perfect landing, based on caclucaltions that Silly Seymour contested.

How do you expalain that?

Oh, wait. That is one of the hundreds of questions you claim to be "grateful" for, yet never even came close to answering, and never will.

I can only offer Lessans' insights and why he came to certain conclusions. If it's not enough, then the only way to resolve this is through further testing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to start this again. It is YOU who has a problem. For some reason, you can't deal with the fact that this is a valid discovery. I am putting you on ignore. I could care less how hard you will try to make me look bad, as long as I don't see them. They are all lies and have nothing to do with my mission to bring important knowledge to light. Good bye.

Like I said, a delusional individual.

[davidm]

Cirque du Surreal

is back in town!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I sent you a pm, why did you not answer me? I will not talk to you until I get a response.

Not reading, sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Too bad you were never able to answer a single one of them, then.

Like this: How did the rover Curiosity get to Mars, peacegirl? NASA calculated its trajectory according to delayed-time seeing of the reflected light of Mars. If Lessans were right, the rover would have missed its target by thousands of miles. But, it made a pinpoint perfect landing, based on caclucaltions that Silly Seymour contested.

How do you expalain that?

Oh, wait. That is one of the hundreds of questions you claim to be "grateful" for, yet never even came close to answering, and never will.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? This question that you hold so dear will be answered in time, with more empirical testing. You don't like to wait, but you're going to have to in order to learn the truth.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Since you will not get help the answer is, you will have to repeat yourself until you are dead.