A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lol. You typed these words before editing them out of your post. You removed them because you know they are not true. You are taking Ceptimus' answer and inserting it into the book as Lessans' answer without giving credit in the book to indicate where the answer came from. It did NOT come from Lessans, but you're going to go right ahead and make it look like it did. That is plagiarism. It is incredibly dishonest.

Why should I let go of it? You are openly plagiarizing.

No, I don't. I don't think he had any mathematical ability.

That's exactly what you're doing.

It's not about gratitude to Ceptimus, but about honesty towards your readers in not lying to them about where the answer came from.

That's why I have no desire to send you the book. You are a nitpicker, and you will never accept that this knowledge trumps yours. See ya in the new world Spacemonkey, and we'll talk again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say there were no afferent structures

Originally Posted by Lessans

there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ

What do these words of Lessans mean, then? Why were they included in the sentence?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but you're going to have to let go of this idea of plagiarism. I changed the word molecule to photon so do I have to mention that too?

Was the word photon given to you directly by an individual who should be credited? If it was the result of a discussion, then a simple thank you to the board in a reference or credit section would suffice, as I already explained. It needs to be mentioned in the book though. Many authors have a long "thank you" section.

Plagiarism means taking someone else's work (research, words, art) and passing it off as your own and/or using someone else's work without crediting the originator.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No. I know in my heart of hearts that he gave the right answer.

You only know that because Ceptimus gave you the right answer to confirm your belief that it was a typo. Ceptimus is the only reason you aren't publishing the wrong answer...an answer that would negate the point Lessans was trying to make. Give Ceptimus credit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think a mathematician (and he was a mathemetician in his own right) would make this kind of mistake when he purposely put it in his own book?

Nobody, except you, thinks or knows that Lessans was a mathematician. Nobody, except you, thinks or knows that it was a typo. We can't prove it because you don't have the source material.

What we do know is that there was a wrong answer in the book, and Ceptimus provided the correct answer along with a proof. He deserves credit for that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you think he would have figured out the right answer? It wasn't a difficult problem to figure out. He solved math problems that were much more difficult than this one.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...but didn't.

The problem was too difficult for YOU to figure out, and you have been given the correct answer and a clear proof by a specific person. It will take a single line in a reference or credit section to credit him for his work.

You don't want there to be any clue in the book that Lessans wasn't 100% correct about everything, so you'd happily be dishonest and a thief, and insufferably rude, to cover his mistakes up. Yay you! Is this the kind of behavior that earns respect in your mind?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Be logical Spacemonkey. I'm not going to satisfy all of you no matter what I do, so I'm going to use my own judgment. I did not take someone else's work. I thanked Ceptimus for picking up this typo, and that should be enough.

It's not enough when you are publishing this work and sending it to people for evaluation of its merits. It is dishonest. It is theft.

Just like the page of doctors quotes you stole off the web and didn't bother to verify that those doctors actually said those things, nor credit the webpage authors. You are passing that research and compilation off as your own. Without a single thought to the person who actually did that work and without a single thought to the doctors named, who may or may not have even said those things. Is this your conscience in action? Because it sucks.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I have no desire to send you the book. You are a nitpicker, and you will never accept that this knowledge trumps yours. See ya in the new world Spacemonkey, and we'll talk again.

And you wonder why you get called a liar

[thedoc]

It has been suggested elswhere in this thread that this is a really peculiar way to run a retail business? Perhaps it is an example of how things are supposed to work in the Brave New World, and this is how Lessans was going to fund the minimun wage for everyone.

I'm also sure Peacegirl feels no remorse in taking Ceptimus's work, since he will not blame her for stealing it, and it's just words and numbers, so she isn't phisycally hurting him. So stealing ideas and concepts will be OK in the Brave New World? Now copyright and patent Lawyers will be out of work since everything will be shared freely. Bad news for Peacegirl, if there is no copyright protection in the Brave New World any one can copy and print the book and Peacegirl will loose her 'meal ticket'.

I am astutely sure this is mathematically correct as I am projecting the concepts presented by Peacegirl in an unrefutable manner.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Was the word photon given to you directly by an individual who should be credited? If it was the result of a discussion, then a simple thank you to the board in a reference or credit section would suffice, as I already explained. It needs to be mentioned in the book though. Many authors have a long "thank you" section.

Plagiarism means taking someone else's work (research, words, art) and passing it off as your own and/or using someone else's work without crediting the originator.

You only know that because Ceptimus gave you the right answer to confirm your belief that it was a typo. Ceptimus is the only reason you aren't publishing the wrong answer...an answer that would negate the point Lessans was trying to make. Give Ceptimus credit.

Nobody, except you, thinks or knows that Lessans was a mathematician. Nobody, except you, thinks or knows that it was a typo. We can't prove it because you don't have the source material.

What we do know is that there was a wrong answer in the book, and Ceptimus provided the correct answer along with a proof. He deserves credit for that.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...but didn't.

The problem was too difficult for YOU to figure out, and you have been given the correct answer and a clear proof by a specific person. It will take a single line in a reference or credit section to credit him for his work.

You don't want there to be any clue in the book that Lessans wasn't 100% correct about everything, so you'd happily be dishonest and a thief, and insufferably rude, to cover his mistakes up. Yay you! Is this the kind of behavior that earns respect in your mind?

It's not enough when you are publishing this work and sending it to people for evaluation of its merits. It is dishonest. It is theft.

Just like the page of doctors quotes you stole off the web and didn't bother to verify that those doctors actually said those things, nor credit the webpage authors. You are passing that research and compilation off as your own. Without a single thought to the person who actually did that work and without a single thought to the doctors named, who may or may not have even said those things. Is this your conscience in action? Because it sucks.

I thanked the people I needed to thank. I'm sorry if you think it sucks. So resent me. You have since day one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Readers would probably be interested in seeing the problem worked out. You could easily add a reference notation in the text, then a reference section at the back of the book with the table and the caption "Thank you Ceptimus of Freethought-Forum.com for providing this clear proof of the correct answer"

No LadyShea. First of all, that is saying Lessans did not have the right answer. He knew the answer. I am having a hard enough time bringing this knowledge to light than right at the starting gate telling people that there were changes due to errors. Even though they were trivialities, it would not fare well for the book, and I would never do that. The world needs this knowledge so for me to jeapordize this work in any way would be terrible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That would also be a good way to credit all of the material you used that was not Lessans original research or work; The extensive quotes by Durant and Morrison (single lines need not be footnoted in my opinion, but whole paragraphs or pages should be), the page of doctor's quotes you lifted wholesale off the web.

He named the book he was referring to, and some of the exact pages. You are throwing that word around too easily LadyShea. I quoted the people who said certain comments with their name attached. Maybe I didn't use footnotes in the common way, but I also did not lie or take someone's work as my own.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You could also include a blanket thank you to all the forums you visited, as you made changes after each one based on those discussions "Thank you to the participants of ILovePhilosphy and IIDB and x, y, z for their contributions" or whatever. It need not be detailed

Ughhhhhh. Never!!! These people didn't know anything about the book. Nothing, nada, zilch. The only thing they did for me was to make me thick skinned. I have no one to thank except the few people in here, which I already did.

[Vivisectus]

Do you actually think a mathematician (and he was a mathemetician in his own right) would make this kind of mistake when he purposely put it in his own book?

Would someone make a mistake like that if that someone was a mathematician?

The idea that he was one requires extra evidence.

The idea that he was no such thing does not: it fits perfectly with what we already know, including the datum on hand, which is the mistake in question. Other things that point in that direction is that he uses the word "mathematical" for things that have nothing whatever to do with math.

It is only because you are indoctrinated into believing your father was this infallible genius that makes your conclusion seem reasonable to you. To the rest of the world, the conclusion that he was dimmer than a penny candle is much more likely to be true.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thanked the people I needed to thank. I'm sorry if you think it sucks. So resent me. You have since day one.

Resent you??!!

People do not even know who you are, and how you are, even what you are.

Just writing something does not give you the right to be resented, for you are just " words on a piece of paper " .

And you know what that means do you not? You are still a figment of people's imagination.

Do you have at least somebody who agrees with you with everything?

Why in the world do you also have to be violent all the time?

For what anyway? To get to know someone on paper?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you hadn't forgotten, then why say you may do what you were already going to do?

For the reasons I just said. After calling me batshit insane, I do have misgivings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The things you say tell me tell me that you really think this work is a piece of junk, so what's the point?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You weren't sending me a copy for my benefit. Have you forgotten why you were sending me a copy?

I don't need you to send the book to a university. I have enough here in the US to start. And I also don't need you to give a review of the book. You would probably tear it to pieces and misconstrue everything he wrote.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anyway, I am resubmitting it and if I do decide to send it I would like you to have the most updated copy, so you might have to wait a little while longer.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've been updating and resubmitting for years now. You're kidding yourself if you think you're ever going to actually get it published.

And that's what you call good logic? No surprise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one else could have put the book together the way that I was able to, just for the simple fact that I knew what my father was trying to get across. I definitely could have used someone to help me with sentence structure and proof reading. I probably spent more money resubmitting the book because of stupid typos than if I had hired someone, but it's water under the bridge now. Time to move on.

Well, the army is part of the government. Whatever the test comprised, they felt that his aptitude was very high.

LadyShea, you are way too suspicious for your own good. I would never have questioned my father's integrity because I trusted him. I had no reason not to. He would not just make a claim like this without it being true. That's called lying and he wasn't a liar. He was the kind of person that would pay you back a nickel if he owed it to you. What child would go behind her own father's back and check up on his honesty if he never showed an ounce of dishonesty. The thought to check up on him never entered my mind. You can't be serious.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't be serious in thinking you are an objective representative of his work when you talk about your blind faith like this, yet you think you are.

You demonstrate a complete lack of skepticism when it comes to anything he had to say to the point of blanket denying any evidence against it, and worse you expect others to share your credulity where he was concerned...asking readers to trust and accept his conclusions without any evidence. You also have made changes to cover his mistakes and refuse to note them...so we know for a fact he wasn't always 100% correct and that you've tried to hide that.

He used a wrong word because he wasn't in the field. I don't have to mention that. He made a typo and I'm not going to make a mountain out of a molehill, or make it appear that he couldn't solve a math problem that he put in his own book. Have common sense LadyShea. People will know after this work is confirmed valid what I changed because they will be able to go back to the original books. It won't matter then, but I will not jeapordize this knowledge in any way because it's too important.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And once again I must point out that publishing software exists and probably costs less than what you've spent and will spend on professional formatting etc.

I'm not redoing the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

PS: I and many others here scored high on all kinds of aptitude and intelligence tests. It's not terribly meaningful.

In your effort to find flaws no matter how trivial, you are losing sight of this work's validity. It's absolutely a disservice to him and his knowledge. Think what you want, but it's obvious that you want to bring him down to size, because you resent him for making these claims. That's what it's all about, isn't it?

[LadyShea]

It's about you, not him. I don't resent him at all. What's to resent? Some guy made some goofy claims...big whoop there's millions of crackpots.

Without you trying to take those claims and create a new world order, in hilarious and disturbing ways, there would be nothing to discuss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's about you, not him. I don't resent him at all. What's to resent? Some guy made some goofy claims...big whoop there's millions of crackpots.

Without you trying to take those claims and create a new world order, in hilarious and disturbing ways, there would be nothing to discuss.

All I can say is that the more incredulous people are, the sweeter it will be when it's proven that he was right all along. I am looking forward to that day.

[LadyShea]

Crackpot index

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

"I know my theory is right, without wasting my time learning the accepted theories."
Science doesn't work that way, either. The fact is, the accepted theories already work, so why replace them? To start with, you have to reproduce all the correct results of the established theories: That means you first have to learn those theories, then check that your new theory can successfully reproduce their correct results. After all, if they're so wrong, why do they work so well? Secondly, to replace the old theories, you have to do better: Successfully predict something the old theories don't. In other words, your new theory has to agree with the old theories where they agree with experiment, and also agree with experiment where the old theory disagrees. But how would you know all that if you haven't studied the old theories in the first place? Would you read a movie review by someone who didn't see the movie?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Crackpot index

I never said science is a sham. You are putting words in my mouth LadyShea.

I can't help that you aren't capable of grasping these principles, but this is no reflection on Lessans.

You cannot be serious LadyShea. Do you think our present system (e.g.., our criminal justice system for one) is working? Don't you think the unrest that is going on in the world is telling us that something is wrong? Nuclear bombs are a very real threat to our world. Why wouldn't any open minded scientist want to understand how we can accomplish a more peaceful world even if he isn't sure that Lessans is right? Why would anyone leave any stone unturned before coming to the conclusion that he couldn't be right? I really don't get it.

"We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, university
researchers destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information,
religion destroy morals, and our banks destroy the economy." Chris Hedges

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. First of all, that is saying Lessans did not have the right answer. He knew the answer. I am having a hard enough time bringing this knowledge to light than right at the starting gate telling people that there were changes due to errors.

No, it's ambiguous. I worded it that way on purpose. You would be crediting Ceptimus for his work, but readers would most likely think he only provided the proof...and that table is really good and easy to understand.

Even so, you just admitted that you are happy to lie as long as it protects Lessans. Nice one!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even though they were trivialities, it would not fare well for the book, and I would never do that. The world needs this knowledge so for me to jeapordize this work in any way would be terrible.

So you 'll just go ahead and steal what you want and not give anyone the credit they deserve.

I suppose you think the ends justify the means, no matter how dishonest and objectionable. Yet, you think we all have the same conscience?

What word am I throwing around too easily?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I quoted the people who said certain comments with their name attached.

No, you copied a list of quotes attributed to people that somebody else compiled. You didn't verify that the quotes or attributions were accurate, or even that those were actual people. You have no idea if they said those things or not or if those things were even said at all. Somebody may have just made them up for all you know- or care apparently. YOu also didn't credit the website source from which you took the compiled list

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I didn't use footnotes in the common way, but I also did not lie or take someone's work as my own.

You did, I proved that way back with the list of doctor's quotes.

[quote-peacegirl]Ughhhhhh. Never!!! These people didn't know anything about the book. Nothing, nada, zilch.

Did you change molecules to photons on your own, or because you were prompted to by a discussion? Did you remove the line about homosexuality of your own accord or because of the discussions here?

They contributed if any changes you made were based on comments from other people.

You demand respect and say you have integrity then do shit like this. You are appallingly self absorbed

The only thing they did for me was to make me thick skinned. I have no one to thank except the few people in here, which I already did.

But you didn't offer any credit in the book, because you are dishonest

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said science is a sham. You are putting words in my mouth LadyShea.

How many times have you said science got it wrong when it comes to vision and that they keep perpetuating that wrong idea because they are too stubborn to admit that they got it wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't help that you aren't capable of grasping these principles, but this is no reflection on Lessans.

Lessans work is that of a crackpot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot be serious LadyShea. Do you think our present system (e.g.., our criminal justice system for one) is working? Don't you think the unrest that is going on in the world is telling us that something is wrong? Nuclear bombs are a very real threat to our world. Why wouldn't any open minded scientist want to understand how we can accomplish a more peaceful world even if he isn't sure that Lessans is right? Why would anyone leave any stone unturned before coming to the conclusion that he couldn't be right? I really don't get it.

You don't get it because you think like a crackpot. Lots of people think they have the answer to world peace, Lessans is just one of thousands, maybe millions.

Anyway that was meant to be toward your refusal to understand the accepted scientific explanation of light and sight before claiming it is false.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can say is that the more incredulous people are, the sweeter it will be when it's proven that he was right all along. I am looking forward to that day.

lol yes, your fantasies of future gloating are very pleasant I am sure.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you a quack?

I mentioned this over a year ago, and never got a reply. It's worth bringing up again.

We have a blind spot in each eye. The standard model of sight explains exactly why this is so.

If Lessans' "model" of sight were correct, there should be no blind spot.

I'm betting that peacegirl can neither explain why Lessans' model predicts that we should not have blind spots, nor why we do have them.

So go on, peacegirl, demonstrate that Lessans' model of sight is superior. It should be a very simple thing to do: explain to us how Lessans' model accounts for the existence of the blind spot in each eye.

Go on, I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about proper, and neither did Lessans. It's the content that matters.

The content depends on the proper, if the details are wrong, the content will be wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you I found $3,060 in his book. He could have made a typo because he wouldn't make a mistake like that. He solved math problems that were a lot more difficult than this one.If Ceptimus is right, and Lessans was wrong, I can see how he could have made that kind of error. The 9 is right next to the 0, and when you're typing numbers it is an easy mistake to make. The book that had the math problem, he was using a manual typewriter. He was a fast typist and it is very possible that a slip of the finger could have caused this. Unfortunately, that example was only in one book so I can't compare. Is Ceptimus positive that he is right? Maybe I should change it to $3,069. It never entered my mind to check his answers on a math problem. I trusted his ability.

You trusted his ability because he said he was good at math, and if he said he was good at math you just accepted it.

You have also implied that if someone respected and famous says something it would be accepted as true. Lessans mentioned Einstein several times and you have implied that if Einstein said something we would accept it as if Einstein couldn't make a mistake, much like you claim for Lessans.

Curious that Einstein included a 'Cosmological Constant' in his field equations for relativity, because the equations indicated a Universe that either expanded or contracted, and Einstein believed in a Universe that stood still. Later, after seeing direct evidence that the Universt was expanding, Einstein said the 'Cosmological Constant' was the "Worst Blunder of my Career". Odd that a man so respected as Einstein could make a mistake, and then admit it, yet Lessans couldn't do either?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I have no desire to send you the book. You are a nitpicker, and you will never accept that this knowledge trumps yours. See ya in the new world Spacemonkey, and we'll talk again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the reasons I just said. After calling me batshit insane, I do have misgivings.

My opinion of your sanity or of the book has no bearing on the reason you were sending me a copy of the book. You were not sending it for my benefit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need you to send the book to a university. I have enough here in the US to start. And I also don't need you to give a review of the book. You would probably tear it to pieces and misconstrue everything he wrote.

You had forgotten why you were sending me the book. I was never going to review it and never offered to do so. I was going to provide a copy to my local university philosophy department library - something you agreed would be helpful and of value to you. What's changed to make you want to renege on your agreement? Actually, it may be a good thing as I don't know if I could in good faith donate the work of a admitted plagiarist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that's what you call good logic? No surprise.

What I said was true. You have been on the point of being about to publish for years. You are locked into a perpetual cycle of editing and resubmission, and will never actually publish anything. Just as you will remain perpetually on the brink of beginning actual promotion and marketing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's ambiguous. I worded it that way on purpose. You would be crediting Ceptimus for his work, but readers would most likely think he only provided the proof...and that table is really good and easy to understand.

Even so, you just admitted that you are happy to lie as long as it protects Lessans. Nice one!

So you 'll just go ahead and steal what you want and not give anyone the credit they deserve.

I suppose you think the ends justify the means, no matter how dishonest and objectionable. Yet, you think we all have the same conscience?

You are not the judge of me LadyShea. You are the one with ulterior motives. I did not steal Ceptimus's answer. He willingly gave it to me because he could see that Lessans made a simple typo. Just because he showed me the mistake doesn't mean I have to include his name in the book. That's nuts. Lessans explained how to go about arriving at the answer. He gave the numbers for the first two stores. It was simple arithematic after that. You have a habit of twisting things around to make it appear what it is not. That is your modus operandi. It seems like you've taken on this thread as your pet project. You are committed to discrediting him any way you can, but it won't work because he's not wrong and your bashing me, or giving a poor review, will only create further interest when other people give good reviews. And believe me, there will be plenty of good reviews.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That would also be a good way to credit all of the material you used that was not Lessans original research or work; The extensive quotes by Durant and Morrison (single lines need not be footnoted in my opinion, but whole paragraphs or pages should be), the page of doctor's quotes you lifted wholesale off the web.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He named the book he was referring to, and some of the exact pages. You are throwing that word around too easily LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What word am I throwing around too easily?

Liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I quoted the people who said certain comments with their name attached.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you copied a list of quotes attributed to people that somebody else compiled. You didn't verify that the quotes or attributions were accurate, or even that those were actual people. You have no idea if they said those things or not or if those things were even said at all. Somebody may have just made them up for all you know- or care apparently. YOu also didn't credit the website source from which you took the compiled list

I am not changing the format of this book. The few pages I used to support what was being said was fair use in my opinion. It will be easy for people to confirm whether these quotes were authentic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I didn't use footnotes in the common way, but I also did not lie or take someone's work as my own.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You did, I proved that way back with the list of doctor's quotes.

Not true. I did not take their quotes and make them mine. Their names are next to their quotes. How dare you accuse me of this when it's such a lie.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You could also include a blanket thank you to all the forums you visited, as you made changes after each one based on those discussions "Thank you to the participants of ILovePhilosphy and IIDB and x, y, z for their contributions" or whatever. It need not be detailed

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ughhhhhh. Never!!! These people didn't know anything about the book. Nothing, nada, zilch.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you change molecules to photons on your own, or because you were prompted to by a discussion? Did you remove the line about homosexuality of your own accord or because of the discussions here?

These were the few things I changed, and you won't let me live it down. Don't give me anymore advice on the off chance that I may take it, or I'll be indebted to you forever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They contributed if any changes you made were based on comments from other people.

They contributed nothing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You demand respect and say you have integrity then do shit like this. You are appallingly self absorbed

Here comes de judge! You are so off the mark, it's funny.

The only thing they did for me was to make me thick skinned. I have no one to thank except the few people in here, which I already did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you didn't offer any credit in the book, because you are dishonest

Not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not the judge of me LadyShea. You are the one with ulterior motives. I did not steal Ceptimus's answer.

You took his answer and are going to insert in the book as something Lessans provided when he did not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He willingly gave it to me because he could see that Lessans made a simple typo.

You are the only one claiming to see that Lessans made a typo. You are now projecting your own views onto Ceptimus in an attempt to ease your own conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he showed me the mistake doesn't mean I have to include his name in the book. That's nuts.

What's nuts about being honest with your readers?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans explained how to go about arriving at the answer. He gave the numbers for the first two stores. It was simple arithematic after that.

So why couldn't you do it yourself? And the one thing Lessans DIDN'T do was provide you with the correct answer. That was Ceptimus, and you are taking his work and trying to pass it off as your father's - purely to cover up another of his mistakes.