A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I added this comment because I found it in his book, dam it. I'm sick of you calling me a liar LadyShea.

Hang on - so the addition "other than light" was not in book A, but it was in book B, which contained the exact same passage as book A did, only with a small variation? How very odd - so he had different books, but with the same passages in all of them? What did he do, cut and paste bits from one to the other?

What made you choose one book over the other, one passage over the other?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I added this comment because I found it in his book, dam it. I'm sick of you calling me a liar LadyShea.

Which book did you find it in? When was it written? Is it one of the ones that has been published? When did you find it, and how?

I do not believe for a single second that you found it. You did it trying to correct his deep misunderstanding.

If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then give up on this discovery. I am not invested in whether you stay or go.

I gave up on his discovery long ago. That doesn't mean I'm going to leave. I will stay and call you out on your lies every time you assert that he supported a claim when you know that he didn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These observations are not mere assertions. When you tell me they aren't supported it sounds like you're telling me that there is no basis for his reasoning. You are totally off base Spacemonkey; how much more clear can I be?

Your lying and evasion couldn't be any clearer. Lessans didn't support these claims which you keep trying to pass off as 'observations' (that he didn't support them is exactly why you keep claiming they are observations instead of actually providing any support for them). Why shouldn't we view him as an idiot for failing to anticipate that the fundamental premise of his non-discovery is something that needs to be supported, and will never be accepted without such support?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't have to...

You do if you expect people to consider you to be honest. You know he was wrong to claim that the eye does not contain afferent nerve endings. You know this. Yet you still can't admit that he was wrong on this point. That makes you a dishonest and evasive weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're making it very difficult for me. Maybe that's why I ignore your questions. Be a little nicer instead of interrogating me every chance you get, and I'll be more interested in talking to you.

Every time you provide excuses for why you do ignore and evade my questions, you simply further demonstrate that you are blatantly lying every time you claim you never ignore or evade my questions. I don't care whether you are interested in talking to me. I know full well that you will never provide a direct or honest answer to anything I ask. You won't because you can't, and I am content to continue pointing this out.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You blew it Vivisectus. I told you not to call him names. Now I'm talking to you. Sorry.

How convenient for you! It saves you having to deal with all these pesky facts, huge mistakes, gaping holes in the book!

The fact remains - no one is going to accept this. The reasoning is deeply flawed, the author was too ignorant to notice his glaring mistakes, he does not support his claims and does not notice, it is written in a style that makes the eyes bleed... it goes on and on.

All this would just be rather sad, if it wasn't laden with an astonishing arrogance and pomposity. You would feel bad for a man who is too ignorant to realize he is making a fool of himself... but someone who is also ignorant enough to do all this and try to be condescending, self-congratulatory and deeply arrogant... now that makes it plain fun again. Such a person is a buffoon, a figure of fun, a classic idiot.

But hey - don't take my word for it! Let's see what happens when you "start promoting the book". Is everyone going to call him a moron, or are they going to hail him as a saviour?

You and I both know how THAT one is going to end. That is why you are still here in the first place.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I added this comment because I found it in his book, dam it. I'm sick of you calling me a liar LadyShea.

I don't believe you either. I think you're lying again. But you can easily prove us wrong. Just take a photograph of the relevant page/passage from the version of Lessans' manuscript which had the additional phrase, and then post it online for us to see.

[Vivisectus]

It must be that the genius Lessans just wrote the same book several times

Hey, what would you do if you had to write the Greatest Discovery of Mankind, the Sequel?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which book did you find it in? When was it written? Is it one of the ones that has been published? When did you find it, and how?

I do not believe for a single second that you found it. You did it trying to correct his deep misunderstanding.

If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

I do not care what you believe LadyShea. I know that it was in one of his books, and I can find it again in one of his books, but I'm not going through all that right now just to prove to you that I'm not a liar. You can believe whatever you want. Like I said, I really don't care.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't believe you either. I think you're lying again. But you can easily prove us wrong. Just take a photograph of the relevant page/passage from the version of Lessans' manuscript which had the additional phrase, and then post it online for us to see.

No, because if I found it you would find something to call me a liar about. I am being called names that I don't deserve to be called. It's as simple as that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You blew it Vivisectus. I told you not to call him names. Now I'm talking to you. Sorry.

Oh noes! Fake ignore for you, Vivisectus! I wouldn't be too concerned. I P-bet you $100 it won't last any longer than mine did.

[Vivisectus]

I do not care what you believe LadyShea. I know that it was in one of his books, and I can find it again in one of his books, but I'm not going through all that right now just to prove to you that I'm not a liar. You can believe whatever you want. Like I said, I really don't care.

As usual, there IS evidence, but no-one could be bothered to produce it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because if I found it you would find something to call me a liar about. I am being called names that I don't deserve to be called. It's as simple as that.

Once again you prove that you'd rather be known as a dishonest liar than make even the most minimal effort to support one of your own claims. You fully deserve to be called a lying weasel. You prove it in every post.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't have to. All I know is that the brain and eyes work differently than what science has stated. That's enough for me.

Faith is enough for you, good luck getting the whole world to adhere to your unsupported beliefs.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not care what you believe LadyShea. I know that it was in one of his books, and I can find it again in one of his books, but I'm not going through all that right now just to prove to you that I'm not a liar. You can believe whatever you want. Like I said, I really don't care.

Of course you care. You get very upset every time I call you on one of your lies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hang on - so the addition "other than light" was not in book A, but it was in book B, which contained the exact same passage as book A did, only with a small variation? How very odd - so he had different books, but with the same passages in all of them? What did he do, cut and paste bits from one to the other?

What made you choose one book over the other, one passage over the other?

I missed it somehow. It was difficult combining these books. Actually, I did find one passage in a book that I didn't use that often. It was written in 1969 entitled "View From the Mountain Top" in honor of Martin Luther King.

p. 41 It can be easily demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from them because absolutely nothing is impinging on the optic nerve, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction because the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

[LadyShea]

The other than light is not even in the same place, peacegirl nor referring to the same aspect, nor offers the same meaning. You are so full of shit

He clearly states, yet again, in this passage

when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from them because absolutely nothing is impinging on the optic nerve, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction because the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Light is external
The eyes have nerve endings

If Lessans understood that light enters the eyes and strikes any nerve ending you care to name, he wouldn't have written the passage as he did. It would be absurd!

We know he knew that the eyes react, he could see pupils dilating and wrote about it. He obviously thought that was the extent of the reaction to light.

[Vivisectus]

It can be easily demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from them because absolutely nothing is impinging on the optic nerve,

it is also, of course, factually incorrect. Newborn babies can mimic faces. This had already been established through tests when the book was written. but hey! Why bother to look things up - much better to just run with whatever popular misconception fits your idea!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I missed it somehow. It was difficult combining these books. Actually, I did find one passage in a book that I didn't use that often. It was written in 1969 entitled "View From the Mountain Top" in honor of Martin Luther King.

p. 41 It can be easily demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from them because absolutely nothing is impinging on the optic nerve, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction because the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

That provides a completely different meaning to where you have inserted this phrase. Here it means that light can get a reaction without impinging on the optic nerve, whereas in the context where you have inserted these words it says that light is the only thing which does impinge on the optic nerve. You owe LadyShea $100.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't care.

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Liar.

[koan]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Welcome to the club, if you read the thread you will find that there are many words that Lessans and Peacegirl are misuseing, Lessans even states in the book that he uses some words in a non standard. He even is so arrogant as to claim that in redefining determinism he is correcting it to make it more accurate. Many Many pages ago I had suggested that someone collecft and publish a dictionary of Lessans/Peacegirl, so that reading the book would be easier. Not necessarily more correct but at least you could more easily identify the errors. I would add that reading the thread might be a bit longer but it is less likely to put you to sleep and you can skim all the repeated posts.

That actually sounds like an interesting project, but I don't want to do her salvage work for her unpaid. Reading the full thread will help catch up on what has already been unsuccessfully pointed out. My first thought about what I would do if I'd inherited the rights to such trash is to pull an L. Ron Hubbard and see if I could first turn it into sci-fi then make a religion out of it. Seems far more likely to make money in either circumstance. If you inherit a house that used to be a grow-op you don't have to live in it. You can rent it to other people who want to run a grow-op

@peacegirl if you want to be the compiler/editor, you need to listen to where the helpful people of this thread are telling you there are problems. That you don't see the problem is entirely NOT the point. You are so obsessed with it you aren't seeing it clearly... that's where we come in. If we tell you it reads that way, it actually reads that way. You need to fix it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

That actually sounds like an interesting project, but I don't want to do her salvage work for her unpaid. Reading the full thread will help catch up on what has already been unsuccessfully pointed out. My first thought about what I would do if I'd inherited the rights to such trash is to pull an L. Ron Hubbard and see if I could first turn it into sci-fi then make a religion out of it. Seems far more likely to make money in either circumstance. If you inherit a house that used to be a grow-op you don't have to live in it. You can rent it to other people who want to run a grow-op

@peacegirl if you want to be the compiler/editor, you need to listen to where the helpful people of this thread are telling you there are problems. That you don't see the problem is entirely NOT the point. You are so obsessed with it you aren't seeing it clearly... that's where we come in. If we tell you it reads that way, it actually reads that way. You need to fix it.

On behalf of most of the other posters on this thread, 'Been there, Done that', ad nauseam, - over and over and over again, really.

[koan]

okay. sweet. let's turn this into a religion ourselves then. I suggest that the legally blind become the new leaders of the "free" world, having already shunned their eyes and realized the illusion that they are organs.

The time stamps on the forum should be good enough proof of authorship and the proceeds of the result can go to freethought-forum.com

[LadyShea]

[koan]

From the first post in this thread
"a book that is a true revolution in thought because this knowledge leads to an alteration of environmental conditions, making war and crime an impossibility, and therefore redefines what was possible at an earlier time."


Problems: If reading the book is the cause of the change, you aren't going to fully have an environmental change because other people in your environment haven't read the book. They will still want to rob, rape and/or kill you. If you lose your ability to either go to war or commit a crime you won't be able to defend yourself. All a nasty person need do, if you state the truth, is get everyone else to read the book then rob them blind. Or kill them all.

What I think you mean is that it will change your personal experience of the environment around you... if you want to sound more appealing, go for "bring about a personal transcendental experience" of your environment. Be careful of using "therefore" statements, they make people leery. Just finish with the transcendental experience and put a picture of a lotus flower beneath.

Bypassing peacegirl's obvious response in favour of our sci-fi novel, I like the idea of a shift in the time/space continuum. If people think not reading the book will result in their lack of salvation from alien obliteration it will work even better.

[koan]

Post 7
"I totally understand your skepticism, but please refrain from making premature conclusions, as best as you can."

I say we take away the ability to have first impressions. It will help our cause.


Post 8
"I am not trying to keep you in suspense, but I do require some interest. If you are interested I would not hesitate to give you the link to an amazing discovery. Accept it or reject it; no one is putting a gun to your head."


Let us put a gun to their head (in the sci-fi version.) We also want suspense but we need to build it more carefully. Don't give them links make them pay progressively more for each step of enlightenment. (Just think of what L. Ron made to divulge that an alien shattered their souls into fragments!)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, dam it. I'm sick of you

A 'dam' is a structure that holds back water. 'Damn' is what you are sick of. You could at least learn to spell.