|
|
03-17-2011, 06:37 PM
|
|
Solipsist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kolmannessa kerroksessa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are you trying to make me look foolish?
|
I am gobsmacked by this.
I hesitated to reply, but really, you need to think about it: even if this book does in fact conceal a life-changing truth (and conceal it very well), it's not other people making you look foolish.
|
03-17-2011, 06:42 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, have you not listened when I told everyone not to open the book at random? In the foreword and introduction it was mentioned that it would look like a fairy tale. You did the exact thing the author urged over and over not to do. Are you trying to make me look foolish? Why are you doing this?
|
I didn't open the book at random. I told you I have read a significant portion of it, then I skimmed for testable claims, since it is posited as a scientific work.
I am doing this to demonstrate WHY people have a problem with the book .
Why are you unable to post a defense, explanation or reasoned argument?
Quote:
Since you already posted this, I guess I have to defend it. Anyone can tell you that for the most part female/male sexual attraction is what brings two people together. If one person knew that the other had no sex organs, most people would not be happy with this set up. There may be exceptions. I know a girl who was paralyzed from the neck down and her boyfriend married her anyway. But for the most part, men and women marry to have a family and sex is part of that.
|
If there are exceptions, that means it is possible. Therefore the word impossible should not have been used.
|
03-17-2011, 06:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
No, she's saying no one read it and liked it, which for her purposes amounts to not reading it at all.
|
Kael, you're wrong. No one read any of it, period. Have you ever been asked by a philosohy teacher to critique a philosopher's ideas without having read his or her work? I doubt it very much.
|
03-17-2011, 06:50 PM
|
|
Adequately Crumbulent
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
No one read any of it, period.
|
So LadyShea, Adam and I are lying?
|
03-17-2011, 06:50 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
It is presented as a scientific work, not a philosophical one, chock full of the aforementioned use of "mathematical" as an adjective and claims related to biological processes. Scientific and mathematical claims can be examined.
I have never had anyone (and we have several University professors right here at ) tell me that excerpts, passages, or specific claims cannot be discussed unless the entire body of work had been read.
|
03-17-2011, 06:50 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have never said I don't respect you, but you are not respecting me.
|
I have shown you a lot of respect that I feel you have not earned. You think I am working so hard to get through to you out of disrespect? That would be a spectacular waste of my time and talents.
Quote:
I don't care about all the others.
|
Then you have spectacularly wasted your time and talents trying to promote this concept.
Quote:
You all follow the same rules.
|
Why do you think that is?
Quote:
It's almost like the people on these forums do not like being told to read anything.
|
Most book promoters at least offer a synopsis, you can't even do that.
Quote:
They like their discourse, even if it sacrifices gaining new knowledge.
|
Deflection and blaming the listener
Quote:
I know you are all intelligent and would have absolutely no problem with the book. I guess you are avoiding answering me about reading 13 pages. This just goes to show how little progress we have actually made. Sadly, we never got past the introduction.
|
Why have you avoided offering a definition, summary or synopsis yet you expect me to?
|
I told you. There is a minimum of reading that has to be done. A synopsis will not be good enough. Thirteen pages is not a lot to read and it could lead to real interest. I'm saddened that people are so stubborn (I'm sorry but that's how I feel) that they are going to lose out on an important discovery.
|
03-17-2011, 06:54 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I read the 13 pages. I have asked you to tell me your thoughts, in your own words before, I present my own feedback.
|
03-17-2011, 06:55 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It is presented as a scientific work, not a philosophical one, chock full of the aforementioned use of "mathematical" as an adjective and claims related to biology.
|
It is mathematical; it has nothing to do with numbers per se, but it is still mathematical. He even qualified it by saying that mathematical only means undeniable. This knowledge is absolutely undeniable meaning that it cannot be denied, if it is understood. It's ironic because everyone here has the intellectual capacity to understand this major work, but I can tell that no one is going to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Scientific and mathematical claims are testable. I have never had anyone (and we have several University professors right here at ) tell me that excerpts or specific claims cannot be discussed unless the entire body of work had been read.
|
It all depends on the type of work. Because this book is based on the first two chapters (in fact, the first two chapter are fundamental), reading the book at random would defeat the whole purpose of what the book is conveying. Every time an excerpt is taken out of context, it unfairly reflects on the author.
|
03-17-2011, 07:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I read the 13 pages. I have asked you to tell me your thoughts, in your own words before, I present my own feedback.
|
No, I need to understand what you got out of it. I will know immediately if you grasped what was being said. If you haven't, I will try to explain where there was misunderstanding. Why is this so distasteful to you?
|
03-17-2011, 07:03 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
You keep having the same conversations over and over, on different forums, through the years. You are the common factor in all of them. The people you are talking to are not the ones with the problem, peacegirl.
Best of luck to you.
|
03-17-2011, 07:05 PM
|
|
The cat that will listen
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Valley of the Sun
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I wish I had the power to ban you!
|
Watch out, Adam, she might be obsessed.
I'm interested in how this idea can prevent crime, war, hatred and at the same time the promoter(s) hold rather hateful ideas about people with mental illness. Such as the fact that people who experience mental illness must be constantly supervised or watched and are destined to ruin OTHER people's lives.
Watch out, it's the woo-woo train!
Don't worry, I define woo-woo in a way that is mathematically different from the way it has been used on this thread to date.
|
03-17-2011, 08:05 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I banz you!
|
03-17-2011, 08:19 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You keep having the same conversations over and over, on different forums, through the years. You are the common factor in all of them. The people you are talking to are not the ones with the problem, peacegirl.
Best of luck to you.
|
You are wrong. Best of luck to you too.
|
03-17-2011, 08:25 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are wrong.
|
Unsupported assertion
|
03-17-2011, 08:31 PM
|
|
A Very Gentle Bort
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bortlandia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Well, so much for this blameless world.
__________________
\V/_ I COVLD TEACh YOV BVT I MVST LEVY A FEE
|
03-17-2011, 08:32 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Fucking persecution complexes, how do they work?
|
03-17-2011, 08:41 PM
|
|
Solipsist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kolmannessa kerroksessa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?
|
03-17-2011, 08:59 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP
One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?
|
Mk 4:10-12 And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of Big Daddy, but for those outside everything happens in parables, so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
--J.D.
|
03-17-2011, 09:21 PM
|
|
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I read the 13 pages. I have asked you to tell me your thoughts, in your own words before, I present my own feedback.
|
No, I need to understand what you got out of it. I will know immediately if you grasped what was being said. If you haven't, I will try to explain where there was misunderstanding. Why is this so distasteful to you?
|
I'm still waiting on you to explain my misunderstandings...or was declaring me wrong and then wishing you could ban me supposed to be some sort of explanation?
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
|
03-17-2011, 09:24 PM
|
|
the internet says I'm right
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, have you not listened when I told everyone not to open the book at random? In the foreword and introduction it was mentioned that it would look like a fairy tale.
|
There is one very probably, and the more I myself read the more likely it seems, explanation for this.
Think about it.
__________________
For Science!Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
03-17-2011, 09:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are wrong.
|
Unsupported assertion
|
Please, this is not an unsupported assertion. Let it be.
|
03-17-2011, 09:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP
One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?
|
It's won't be that difficult once this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment.
|
03-17-2011, 09:31 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I read the 13 pages. I have asked you to tell me your thoughts, in your own words before, I present my own feedback.
|
No, I need to understand what you got out of it. I will know immediately if you grasped what was being said. If you haven't, I will try to explain where there was misunderstanding. Why is this so distasteful to you?
|
I'm still waiting on you to explain my misunderstandings...or was declaring me wrong and then wishing you could ban me supposed to be some sort of explanation?
|
Adam, I hardly talked to you. You had nothing substantial to say, so I have nothing substantial to say back.
|
03-17-2011, 09:38 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Oh what the hell:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP
One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?
|
It's won't be that difficult once this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment.
|
Why would a "law" have to become a permanent "condition of the environment?"
Rather like eschatology: it is always just going to happen . . . and everyone will agree with us . . . who are not on fire . . . REAL soon.
--J.D.
|
03-17-2011, 09:38 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are wrong.
|
Unsupported assertion
|
Please, this is not an unsupported assertion. Let it be.
|
Then support it. Demonstrate my wrongness
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 137 (0 members and 137 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.
|
|
|
|