A revolution in thought - Page 955

peacegirl · #**23851** 01-08-2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Seeing as you're back to discussing vision...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was asked to explain how a camera and the eye can be the same when a camera doesn't have a brain. That cameras develop photographs of real time images, and the eyes see those images (or objects) in real time, does not change the mechanism that allows this to occur. This was a reasonable explanation.

No, appealing to a comparison with something else that you can't explain is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having to get there is not necessary if it's a mirror image. The only way a mirror image can show up is if the requirement that the object is within the field of view, is met.

Satisfying your requirements DOES NOT explain how the light gets to be there at the film. Anything that is somewhere has to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not the full light spectrum, therefore it is believed that the pattern of light will produce an image of the object that it bounced off of.

Of course not the full spectrum. So long as objects have absorptive properties, it will not be the full spectrum that bounces off objects. But the light is still distinct from the object and travels without bringing anything but itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a matter of opinion. If the eyes are efferent light reveals (or reflects) the world, not the other way around.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a simple matter of understanding what the word 'reflect' means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light does not have to get anywhere if the eyes are efferent, that's just the point. The light reveals the object which means it has to be a mirror image which does not require travel time.

Photons that get from the object to the distant camera to form a mirror image there with zero travel time are TELEPORTING photons. Getting from one physical location to another physical location without traveling through the intervening distance and without taking any time to get there is teleportation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't understood a thing I've tried to explain, which is why there can be no resolution in either of these debates. :eek:

You haven't tried to EXPLAIN anything. You don't even seem to understand what an explanation actually is.

Bump.

You really need to calm down Spacemonkey because otherwise we can't communicate. Sorry.

peacegirl · #**23852** 01-08-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

More lies. You don't have any idea how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth to be present at the camera, and you ran away from this problem last time after deciding to change the topic:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent sight cannot be analyzed in terms of traveling photons, as if these photons contain the image alone. This is where you are having problems. I don't want to continue this conversation at this time (maybe at a later date) because I have more important things to talk about right now (i.e., how to achieve world peace).

Your weaseling avoidance is noted. I will bring it up again next time you steer the discussion away from conscience and free will back to vision. Until then efferent vision will continue to be rejected due to your contradictory claims about the behavior of light on your account.

Therefore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

White light is just the collection of light of differing wavelengths. When this light hits an object, some of it is absorbed and used up, while the rest bounces off and travels away. The light that bounces off and travels away is the non-absorbed light.

You're just repeating the exact thing Lessans is disputing.

Yes. They are also the known measurable properties of light - which you and Lessans are disputing. What happens to these non-absorbed photons after they hit an object, if they don't bounce off and travel away from it? Don't just say that they "reveal the object". You need to explain where they are and where they are going immediately after hitting the object that allows them to do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your interpretation, and I believe it's wrong. It is true that part of the spectrum that got absorbed is no longer there. The question is what is happening with the non-absorbed light. Is it bouncing and being reflected, or is it revealing the external world to those who are looking in that direction?

The non-absorbed light can't affect the retina or a film without coming into contact with it. It can't come into contact with it without traveling there at the speed of light. If it gets there any faster then it is violating physics by either teleporting or traveling faster than light. If you think otherwise, then please go ahead and explain where these non-absorbed photons are immediately after hitting the object, and how they can interact with the film or retina to 'reveal the external world' without first getting to the film or retina, and taking time to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why we only get on the retina the non-absorbed photons which allow us to see the object. But the question remains...

The question that remains is this: How do the non-absorbed photons allow us to see the object on your account, given that they start at the object and can't affect the retina in any way without first getting from the object to the retina?

Bump.

I am going to say one last time: calm down and give me equal respect and maybe we can have a conversation. The ball is in your court.

peacegirl · #**23853** 01-08-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Writing a rebuttal to another man's book is a common thing to do. Lessans is essentially writing a rebuttal to Durant. His fixation is obvious.

You are difficult to engage with koan. There is no fixation; there is objection. You are the kind of person who considers herself to be part of the intelligensia and you feel justified in laughing at Lessans. I cannot deal with a person like you because your agenda is already written. You are not being truthful to yourself at all, so how in the world could you be truthful to other people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

In common practice, a rebuttal is written within a year of the book it criticizes. Lessans was already 30 years too late when he started. He is 82 years late now.

This is not about protocol, dam it. Go back to your safe space and leave no room for another point of view if this makes you more comfortable. I'm done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Nobody cares if Durant was wrong. We really don't.

By admitting to this shows me that you have no understanding of why he is refuting Durant. You are worse than someone who is illiterate, I swear. You are doing such harm it is so sad to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

If you take out all the references to Durant, what are you left with? That should be your starting point as an editor.

Please delete the pdf that was given to you. It's not good for you to hold onto something that you think has all kinds of flaws. I am asking you to be compassionate to me and to yourself. Just delete the book. I hope you will honor my request, although I know you will still do what you want to do. I just hope you will be kind to me and not go further with the knowledge you have in your possession.

koan · #**23854** 01-08-2013, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are difficult to engage with koan. There is no fixation; there is objection. You are the kind of person who considers herself to be part of the intelligensia and you feel justified in laughing at Lessans. I cannot deal with a person like you because your agenda is already written. You are not being truthful to yourself at all, so how in the world could you be truthful to other people?
...
This is not about protocol, dam it. Go back to your safe space and leave no room for another point of view if this makes you more comfortable. I'm done.
...
By admitting to this shows me that you have no understanding of why he is refuting Durant. You are worse than someone who is illiterate, I swear. You are doing such harm it is so sad to me.
...
Please delete the pdf that was given to you. It's not good for you to hold onto something that you think has all kinds of flaws. I am asking you to be compassionate to me and to yourself. Just delete the book. I hope you will honor my request, although I know you will still do what you want to do. I just hope you will be kind to me and not go further with the knowledge you have in your possession.

No. I read the whole thing. I could have stopped after twenty pages but you insisted people read the whole thing before judging. After I put that time in, there is not a chance in hell I'm going to delete it and pretend it never happened. I need to justify how I spent all that time.

I am not "intelligentsia." I don't have a single degree and I have no idea, other than :ff:

, where smart people hang out.

If you can't negotiate with me, you don't stand a chance with the Big Boys. You think I don't have compassion? I am dealing with you as I would hope others would deal with me when I submit ideas for consideration. We haven't laughed at you and told you to fuck off. You have thousands of pages of advice that you could be using to improve your work but instead of seeing the massive tome of free advice you've been given you get huffy and start calling us names. We're so compassionate, we keep coming back to reason with you after you call us names.

We have a faint glimmer of hope that, one day, you'll stop being so pig headed and actually consider our advice honestly.

This is about protocol. And respect. Unless you start exhibiting some of each, you will continue to waste your life on a book that does nothing for the world but embarrass your family. That's why people get non-fiction books peer edited. But other people actually make changes where every other person has seen it has flaws. You won't.

peacegirl · #**23855** 01-08-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are difficult to engage with koan. There is no fixation; there is objection. You are the kind of person who considers herself to be part of the intelligensia and you feel justified in laughing at Lessans. I cannot deal with a person like you because your agenda is already written. You are not being truthful to yourself at all, so how in the world could you be truthful to other people?
...
This is not about protocol, dam it. Go back to your safe space and leave no room for another point of view if this makes you more comfortable. I'm done.
...
By admitting to this shows me that you have no understanding of why he is refuting Durant. You are worse than someone who is illiterate, I swear. You are doing such harm it is so sad to me.
...
Please delete the pdf that was given to you. It's not good for you to hold onto something that you think has all kinds of flaws. I am asking you to be compassionate to me and to yourself. Just delete the book. I hope you will honor my request, although I know you will still do what you want to do. I just hope you will be kind to me and not go further with the knowledge you have in your possession.

No. I read the whole thing. I could have stopped after twenty pages but you insisted people read the whole thing before judging. After I put that time in, there is not a chance in hell I'm going to delete it and pretend it never happened. I need to justify how I spent all that time.

I am not "intelligentsia." I don't have a single degree and I have no idea, other than :ff:

, where smart people hang out.

If you can't negotiate with me, you don't stand a chance with the Big Boys. You think I don't have compassion? I am dealing with you as I would hope others would deal with me when I submit ideas for consideration. We haven't laughed at you and told you to fuck off. You have thousands of pages of advice that you could be using to improve your work but instead of seeing the massive tome of free advice you've been given you get huffy and start calling us names. We're so compassionate, we keep coming back to reason with you after you call us names.

It doesn't matter that you don't tell me to fuck off, I feel the disdain, and I feel the arrogance. I have gotten some advice, and I appreciate those who were sincere, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that this discovery is valid. Don't you dare put the responsibility for this on me when I did not strike the first blow. You have been one of the main instigators telling me that you would like to write a book on my delusions and then come off all demure and sweet. You obviously have a split personality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

We have a faint glimmer of hope that, one day, you'll stop being so pig headed and actually consider our advice honestly.

This is about protocol. And respect. Unless you start exhibiting some of each, you will continue to waste your life on a book that does nothing for the world but embarrass your family. That's why people get non-fiction books peer edited. But other people actually make changes where every other person has seen it has flaws. You won't.

I have always shown respect to everyone. I learned respect from my father. But this group is testing me big time. I will not sit by and be called names without defending myself. I admit that there were some typos, and the sentence structure could always be improved upon. But so what? The content is valid, and it has been explained in a way that can be understood. Why are you focusing on the negative koan unless you have some kind of motive? Do you resent that he didn't get this peer reviewed? Is that it? I don't know where this resentment comes from. There is something not right, and I'm not wasting my time trying to figure it out.

koan · #**23856** 01-08-2013, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that you don't tell me to fuck off, I feel the disdain, and I feel the arrogance. I have gotten some advice, and I appreciate those who were sincere, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that this discovery is valid. Don't you dare put the responsibility for this on me when I did not strike the first blow. You have been one of the main instigators telling me that you would like to write a book on my delusions and then come off all demure and sweet. You obviously have a split personality.
...
I have always shown respect to everyone. I learned respect from my father. But this group is testing me big time. I will not sit by and be called names without defending myself. I admit that there were some typos, and the sentence structure could always be improved upon. But so what? The content is valid, and it has been explained in a way that can be understood. Why are you focusing on the negative koan unless you have some kind of motive? Do you resent that he didn't get this peer reviewed? Is that it? I don't know where this resentment comes from. There is something not right, and I'm not wasting my time trying to figure it out.

I told you you should write a book about having a delusional father who cursed you to continue his fantasy world after his death. It would be a much better book. Possibly a best seller if you do it right.

I'm too busy writing my paraphrased version of the Hebrew Bible right now to do such a task. It's not vindictive. I'm serious. You need a book that people will read. I'm telling you how to get one.

peacegirl · #**23857** 01-08-2013, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that you don't tell me to fuck off, I feel the disdain, and I feel the arrogance. I have gotten some advice, and I appreciate those who were sincere, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that this discovery is valid. Don't you dare put the responsibility for this on me when I did not strike the first blow. You have been one of the main instigators telling me that you would like to write a book on my delusions and then come off all demure and sweet. You obviously have a split personality.
...
I have always shown respect to everyone. I learned respect from my father. But this group is testing me big time. I will not sit by and be called names without defending myself. I admit that there were some typos, and the sentence structure could always be improved upon. But so what? The content is valid, and it has been explained in a way that can be understood. Why are you focusing on the negative koan unless you have some kind of motive? Do you resent that he didn't get this peer reviewed? Is that it? I don't know where this resentment comes from. There is something not right, and I'm not wasting my time trying to figure it out.

I told you you should write a book about having a delusional father who cursed you to continue his fantasy world after his death. It would be a much better book. Possibly a best seller if you do it right.

I'm too busy writing my paraphrased version of the Hebrew Bible right now to do such a task. It's not vindictive. I'm serious. You need a book that people will read. I'm telling you how to get one.

That is the most passive/aggressive response to date. Just to let you know for the 100th time, I don't need your advice.

koan · #**23858** 01-08-2013, 06:43 PM

Compare reactions to your Dad's book to reactions had by other visionaries who changed the world.

People heard the Koran being recited, started weeping and instantly converted.

People heard Jesus give a sermon and abandoned their jobs to follow him around and take notes.

People read about twenty pages of Lessans' book and say "wtf??"

Do you see a difference? I see a difference. It's a sign. A sign from God. Which reminds me, I think it's your Bible that has you thinking people go around blaming each other all the time. The Hebrews invented the scapegoat. Every time something didn't go their way they determined God was mad at them because someone in the tribe broke a rule. No wonder you think the rest of the world is full of blame. They aren't.

koan · #**23859** 01-08-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the most passive/aggressive response to date. Just to let you know for the 100th time, I don't need your advice.

Oh, but you do. That's why you've been online for 10 years asking people to read your book instead of just publishing it and being done.

peacegirl · #**23860** 01-08-2013, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Compare reactions to your Dad's book to reactions had by other visionaries who changed the world.

People heard the Koran being recited, started weeping and instantly converted.

People heard Jesus give a sermon and abandoned their jobs to follow him around and take notes.

People read about twenty pages of Lessans' book and say "wtf??"

Do you see a difference? I see a difference. It's a sign. A sign from God. Which reminds me, I think it's your Bible that has you thinking people go around blaming each other all the time. The Hebrews invented the scapegoat. Every time something didn't go their way they determined God was mad at them because someone in the tribe broke a rule. No wonder you think the rest of the world is full of blame. They aren't.

The basic tenets of our justice system is based on blame and recrimination; people getting their just desert, so to speak. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the majority of the world does not blame which is based on the belief in some form of free will.

peacegirl · #**23861** 01-08-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the most passive/aggressive response to date. Just to let you know for the 100th time, I don't need your advice.

Oh, but you do. That's why you've been online for 10 years asking people to read your book instead of just publishing it and being done.

Actually, it's all part of the process. I am publishing the book, and it's coming very soon. I hope I can get the book into the hands of people who would appreciate this man's accomplishments, instead of bash him endlessly because of a typo.

koan · #**23862** 01-08-2013, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by koan

Compare reactions to your Dad's book to reactions had by other visionaries who changed the world.

People heard the Koran being recited, started weeping and instantly converted.

People heard Jesus give a sermon and abandoned their jobs to follow him around and take notes.

People read about twenty pages of Lessans' book and say "wtf??"

Do you see a difference? I see a difference. It's a sign. A sign from God. Which reminds me, I think it's your Bible that has you thinking people go around blaming each other all the time. The Hebrews invented the scapegoat. Every time something didn't go their way they determined God was mad at them because someone in the tribe broke a rule. No wonder you think the rest of the world is full of blame. They aren't.

The basic tenets of our justice system is based on blame and recrimination; people getting their just desert, so to speak. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the majority of the world does not blame which is based on the belief in some form of free will.

I can tell you with a straight face that I do not blame people for the sorts of things that Lessans says we blame people. Penalties for failing to comply with the laws of one's community are required whether people are to blame or not. You can't just let people run around doing disruptive things. We have to share the planet with each other. Even if they aren't to blame, the bastards must be stopped.

But Lessans doesn't talk about murder and rape and school shootings, though he touches briefly on bar fights, he is mostly concerned with how to get kids to bed, what to make for dinner and who gets to choose the tv channel. Those are the things we don't send people to jail for.

Spacemonkey · #**23863** 01-08-2013, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to calm down Spacemonkey because otherwise we can't communicate. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to say one last time: calm down and give me equal respect and maybe we can have a conversation. The ball is in your court.

LOL. More weaseling. What makes you think I'm not calm? Why didn't you address either of the posts I just bumped? :weasel:

Spacemonkey · #**23864** 01-08-2013, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Seeing as you're back to discussing vision...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was asked to explain how a camera and the eye can be the same when a camera doesn't have a brain. That cameras develop photographs of real time images, and the eyes see those images (or objects) in real time, does not change the mechanism that allows this to occur. This was a reasonable explanation.

No, appealing to a comparison with something else that you can't explain is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having to get there is not necessary if it's a mirror image. The only way a mirror image can show up is if the requirement that the object is within the field of view, is met.

Satisfying your requirements DOES NOT explain how the light gets to be there at the film. Anything that is somewhere has to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not the full light spectrum, therefore it is believed that the pattern of light will produce an image of the object that it bounced off of.

Of course not the full spectrum. So long as objects have absorptive properties, it will not be the full spectrum that bounces off objects. But the light is still distinct from the object and travels without bringing anything but itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a matter of opinion. If the eyes are efferent light reveals (or reflects) the world, not the other way around.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a simple matter of understanding what the word 'reflect' means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light does not have to get anywhere if the eyes are efferent, that's just the point. The light reveals the object which means it has to be a mirror image which does not require travel time.

Photons that get from the object to the distant camera to form a mirror image there with zero travel time are TELEPORTING photons. Getting from one physical location to another physical location without traveling through the intervening distance and without taking any time to get there is teleportation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't understood a thing I've tried to explain, which is why there can be no resolution in either of these debates. :eek:

You haven't tried to EXPLAIN anything. You don't even seem to understand what an explanation actually is.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**23865** 01-08-2013, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

More lies. You don't have any idea how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth to be present at the camera, and you ran away from this problem last time after deciding to change the topic:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent sight cannot be analyzed in terms of traveling photons, as if these photons contain the image alone. This is where you are having problems. I don't want to continue this conversation at this time (maybe at a later date) because I have more important things to talk about right now (i.e., how to achieve world peace).

Your weaseling avoidance is noted. I will bring it up again next time you steer the discussion away from conscience and free will back to vision. Until then efferent vision will continue to be rejected due to your contradictory claims about the behavior of light on your account.

Therefore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

White light is just the collection of light of differing wavelengths. When this light hits an object, some of it is absorbed and used up, while the rest bounces off and travels away. The light that bounces off and travels away is the non-absorbed light.

You're just repeating the exact thing Lessans is disputing.

Yes. They are also the known measurable properties of light - which you and Lessans are disputing. What happens to these non-absorbed photons after they hit an object, if they don't bounce off and travel away from it? Don't just say that they "reveal the object". You need to explain where they are and where they are going immediately after hitting the object that allows them to do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your interpretation, and I believe it's wrong. It is true that part of the spectrum that got absorbed is no longer there. The question is what is happening with the non-absorbed light. Is it bouncing and being reflected, or is it revealing the external world to those who are looking in that direction?

The non-absorbed light can't affect the retina or a film without coming into contact with it. It can't come into contact with it without traveling there at the speed of light. If it gets there any faster then it is violating physics by either teleporting or traveling faster than light. If you think otherwise, then please go ahead and explain where these non-absorbed photons are immediately after hitting the object, and how they can interact with the film or retina to 'reveal the external world' without first getting to the film or retina, and taking time to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why we only get on the retina the non-absorbed photons which allow us to see the object. But the question remains...

The question that remains is this: How do the non-absorbed photons allow us to see the object on your account, given that they start at the object and can't affect the retina in any way without first getting from the object to the retina?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**23866** 01-08-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to calm down Spacemonkey because otherwise we can't communicate. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to say one last time: calm down and give me equal respect and maybe we can have a conversation. The ball is in your court.

LOL. More weaseling. What makes you think I'm not calm? Why didn't you address either of the posts I just bumped? :weasel:

Whatever it is you are displaying, I don't appreciate it, okay? I don't like you diagnosing my personality or my character traits. That's not what I joined up for. I will not get into a conversation with you again if you don't change your way of addressing me in a big way. And I mean that sincerely.

Spacemonkey · #**23867** 01-08-2013, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to calm down Spacemonkey because otherwise we can't communicate. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to say one last time: calm down and give me equal respect and maybe we can have a conversation. The ball is in your court.

LOL. More weaseling. What makes you think I'm not calm? Why didn't you address either of the posts I just bumped? :weasel:

Whatever it is you are displaying, I don't appreciate it, okay? I don't like you diagnosing my personality or my character traits. That's not what I joined up for. I will not get into a conversation with you again if you don't change your way of addressing me in a big way. And I mean that sincerely.

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not. And when you refuse to answer my on-topic responses and questions, you leave me with nothing else to discuss but your deluded mental state.

thedoc · #**23868** 01-08-2013, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not.

Oh my goodness! And here we have a genuine display of 'Greater Satisfaction' in practice. What more proof do we need, Spacemonkey has fallen off the wagon and joined the ranks (all 2 of them) of Lessantoniaismness, and will no longer be criticizing Peacegirl, the great profitess of whateverthatstuffwas.

peacegirl · #**23869** 01-09-2013, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to calm down Spacemonkey because otherwise we can't communicate. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to say one last time: calm down and give me equal respect and maybe we can have a conversation. The ball is in your court.

LOL. More weaseling. What makes you think I'm not calm? Why didn't you address either of the posts I just bumped? :weasel:

Whatever it is you are displaying, I don't appreciate it, okay? I don't like you diagnosing my personality or my character traits. That's not what I joined up for. I will not get into a conversation with you again if you don't change your way of addressing me in a big way. And I mean that sincerely.

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not. And when you refuse to answer my on-topic responses and questions, you leave me with nothing else to discuss but your deluded mental state.

I will never answer any of your posts as long as long as you keep this charade up, and let me make something perfectly clear, I will not accept your put downs anymore. I demand respect, and if you can't give it, then tootaloo! :wave:

Spacemonkey · #**23870** 01-09-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not. And when you refuse to answer my on-topic responses and questions, you leave me with nothing else to discuss but your deluded mental state.

I will never answer any of your posts as long as long as you keep this charade up, and let me make something perfectly clear, I will not accept your put downs anymore. I demand respect, and if you can't give it, then tootaloo! :wave:

I respect you enough to be honest with you about your deluded and deranged behaviour. If you want me to discuss your material rather than your mental state, then you'll need to start addressing my posts instead of avoiding them. I'm not at all worried by your threats to ignore me, because I know from experience that you're not capable of following through.

peacegirl · #**23871** 01-09-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not. And when you refuse to answer my on-topic responses and questions, you leave me with nothing else to discuss but your deluded mental state.

I will never answer any of your posts as long as long as you keep this charade up, and let me make something perfectly clear, I will not accept your put downs anymore. I demand respect, and if you can't give it, then tootaloo! :wave:

I respect you enough to be honest with you about your deluded and deranged behaviour. If you want me to discuss your material rather than your mental state, then you'll need to start addressing my posts instead of avoiding them. I'm not at all worried by your threats to ignore me, because I know from experience that you're not capable of following through.

You're not honest and you're not smart, so give it up. You will know soon enough that I will refuse to answer you under these conditions. If you don't want to heed these fair expectations, then you will have to deal with the consequences. IT IS YOUR LOSS SPACEMONKEY.

Spacemonkey · #**23872** 01-09-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not honest and you're not smart, so give it up.

Projection.

peacegirl · #**23873** 01-09-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not. And when you refuse to answer my on-topic responses and questions, you leave me with nothing else to discuss but your deluded mental state.

I will never answer any of your posts as long as long as you keep this charade up, and let me make something perfectly clear, I will not accept your put downs anymore. I demand respect, and if you can't give it, then tootaloo! :wave:

I respect you enough to be honest with you about your deluded and deranged behaviour. If you want me to discuss your material rather than your mental state, then you'll need to start addressing my posts instead of avoiding them. I'm not at all worried by your threats to ignore me, because I know from experience that you're not capable of following through.

No Spacemonkey, before I would ever start answering your legitimate questions you are going to need to apologize for your rude behavior. If not, it's over.

Spacemonkey · #**23874** 01-09-2013, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck for you. You are mentally ill, and I won't pretend otherwise. I am quite content to keep bumping the posts and questions you refuse to answer, whether you reply to them or not. And when you refuse to answer my on-topic responses and questions, you leave me with nothing else to discuss but your deluded mental state.

I will never answer any of your posts as long as long as you keep this charade up, and let me make something perfectly clear, I will not accept your put downs anymore. I demand respect, and if you can't give it, then tootaloo! :wave:

I respect you enough to be honest with you about your deluded and deranged behaviour. If you want me to discuss your material rather than your mental state, then you'll need to start addressing my posts instead of avoiding them. I'm not at all worried by your threats to ignore me, because I know from experience that you're not capable of following through.

No Spacemonkey, before I would ever start answering your legitimate questions you are going to need to apologize for your rude behavior. If not, it's over.

I have nothing to apologize for. Everything I've said about you has been backed up with undeniable evidence. You cannot say the same for the bullshit you've said about me or other posters.

LadyShea · #**23875** 01-09-2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have always shown respect to everyone.

Your first day here you said I was a very bitter individual and deemed me too angry to communicate with.