A revolution in thought

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you so much for displaying your lack of protocol and your inability to admit any wrongdoing in your phony analysis. Your display of disregard for proper and rigorous investigation should be condemned.

...she said, while literally disregarding proper and rigorous investigation

Anyway, peacegirl, I am so glad you brought up protocol and proper and rigorous investigation! As you know, the Authentic Text tells us that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." (Of course, you simply deleted this when preparing your cancerous Corrupted Text!)



peacegirl, what proper and rigorous investigations support that claim? What protocol and analyses underpin it? On what data set is it based? Which facts substantiate it?

[ChuckF]

I do want to be totally transparent for all of the thousands of newcomers arriving each day:

While it is arguably the most obviously retarded and bizarre*, the proof by dog eyes is by no means the most hilarious piece of Lessansia presented here. I think juicy cunt is a clear frontrunner for that distinction.

*There are of course dozens of throwaway lines, about how we always hear airplanes before we see them and dad's breastfeeding, etc., but we should probably limit to the field to those things that got a significant word count.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cop out!

You lied. You lie constantly. You don't even seem to be aware of how often you do it.

I'm just glad we finally have a true steward who can present Lessans' ideas without distortion and corruption.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Friends, lurkers and newcomers, peacegirl is lying to you again. She is no more capable of leaving ChuckF's "A revolution in thought" thread than she is of abandoning her reliance on stolen taxpayer funds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

...she said, while literally disregarding proper and rigorous investigation

Anyway, peacegirl, I am so glad you brought up protocol and proper and rigorous investigation! As you know, the Authentic Text tells us that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." (Of course, you simply deleted this when preparing your cancerous Corrupted Text!)



peacegirl, what proper and rigorous investigations support that claim? What protocol and analyses underpin it? On what data set is it based? Which facts substantiate it?

That was not his claim Chuck. His claims were clearly spelled out. The trivia that you're trying to discredit him for is due to the fact that you have nothing else on him. All of these numbers like 98%, millions of babies born, etc. were generalizations. He could have left them out and just said the majority or many, etc. but he didn't realize people like you would use this to try to undermine him in the most egregious way possible. That is the perfect example of what lawyers do; deceive the public in order to win a case. You are grasping at straws and any real scholar would see that. If he didn't support his claims, then you would have a case. But he did support his claims whether you see it or not.

Because it will be very difficult to believe or even conceive how a natural law, acting as a catalyst, can change the entire world of human relations for the benefit of all mankind; and because it is imperative that this fantastic BREAKTHROUGH be brought to light, you can now listen to the author as he reads and elaborates on the first chapter of his book “Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. The actual discovery, which is revealed in Chapter Two, is nothing other than a natural, psychological law of man’s ultimate nature which has remained hidden behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding — until now. This law prevents man from striking the first blow, thus eliminating the need to blame, punish, to retaliate or to turn the other cheek.

Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a projecting function of the brain, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end.

The other law asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with millions and millions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread is not healthy for me so I am not posting anymore.

back, peacegirl.

My goodness, boys, this thread is a veritable Grand Central Station of newcomers, isn't it? All of them peacegirl.

[ChuckF]

peacegirl's recent posts give me some cause for optimism. Her resumed energies and return to those perennial sensitivities suggest to me that peacegirl's emotional state is cycling back into one its fertile intervals, from which the most entertaining hysterical shit-fits can be induced. I doubt that we will see much of them today, because it is already after 10 a.m. on the East Coast of the US, and she will have been drinking for several hours already. But these periods tend to last for at least several days at a stretch, and occasionally several weeks, so we will not have to wait too long.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of these numbers like 98%, millions of babies born, etc. were generalizations. He could have left them out and just said the majority or many, etc.

Lack of protocol, phony analysis, disregard for proper and rigorous investigation, etc. etc.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Her resumed energies and return to those perennial sensitivities suggest to me that peacegirl's emotional state is cycling back into one its fertile intervals, from which the most entertaining hysterical shit-fits can be induced.

Agreed! As seen in another thread, peacegirl is now citing doomsday preppers as authoritative sources. Dis gun b gud.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Don't worry, the day is coming and when that day comes, you will have to think up more lies in order to have the last word, as always.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Lack of protocol, phony analysis, disregard for proper and rigorous investigation, etc. etc.

His protocol was fine, his observations and analysis were without flaw. Your protocol is not working Chuck. It may work for your job, but it's not working here. It has failed. You can't take the heat, I know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Agreed! As seen in another thread, peacegirl is now citing doomsday preppers as authoritative sources. Dis gun b gud.

It was from other sources as well.

Trump Signs Medical Marijuana Protection, With No Caveat This Time | Marijuana Moment

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claims were clearly spelled out.

That's true. In this instance, the claim is that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." It doesn't get any more clearly spelled out than that.

Is the quoted statement a claim? An astute observation? Both? Neither?

Never mind. Asking you to answer such questions is like asking a howler monkey with a brain injury to do calculus.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

millions of babies born

Trillions, peacegirl, trillions. This is yet another fraudulent corruption on your part. Why do you resent Seymour Lessans so deeply?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

back, peacegirl.

My goodness, boys, this thread is a veritable Grand Central Station of newcomers, isn't it? All of them peacegirl.

I am glad there are no newcomers. And fyi I'm not staying to listen to the likes of you David.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's true. In this instance, the claim is that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." It doesn't get any more clearly spelled out than that.

Is the quoted statement a claim? An astute observation? Both? Neither?

Never mind. Asking you to answer such questions is like asking a howler monkey with a brain injury to do calculus.

Trillions, peacegirl, trillions. This is yet another fraudulent corruption on your part. Why do you resent Seymour Lessans so deeply?

It doesn't matter Chuck. This was a triviality just like 98%. The concept of what death is (which he was trying to explain) remains valid whether he said a trillion babies, a million babies, or a thousand babies. Every single contention you have offered has no bearing on his discoveries. You are not capable of recognizing your own flawed thinking. You would not be able to admit that you were wrong even if his discoveries were validated by top scientists and the Great Transition had already begun. You would still be mumbling that he said 98%, and trillions of babies, so he must be wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread is not healthy for me so I am not posting anymore.

You were right about this not being healthy for you, PG.

Unfortunately you insist on moving in the direction of least satisfaction.

Probably just to make Lessans roll in his grave one more time.

I don't know why you hate him so much.

Isn't it enough that you've corrupted and destroyed his legacy, reducing him to a laughing stock all over the internet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's true. In this instance, the claim is that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." It doesn't get any more clearly spelled out than that.

Is the quoted statement a claim? An astute observation? Both? Neither?

Never mind. Asking you to answer such questions is like asking a howler monkey with a brain injury to do calculus.

Trillions, peacegirl, trillions. This is yet another fraudulent corruption on your part. Why do you resent Seymour Lessans so deeply?

Notice that Maturin and chuck keep harping on the same points over and over and over again as if they're new. I already told you that his statement may have been inaccurate. Maybe homosexuality is completely genetic. Maybe not being able to find a partner (like when a person is in prison), or a bad experience (which can lead someone to choose the same sex in their next relationship), is a very small percentage of people who are gay. But this HAS NO BEARING on his discoveries. I agree that he should not have said 98%. If he was living, he would have removed it given that people are so sensitive regarding this subject. That is why I took it out. It would be sad if people listened to you and threw out the baby. I am glad you pointed out these few trivialities so I could take out the unnecessary. To repeat: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of his discoveries.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry, the day is coming

Everyone can see what's going on here. You want what you can't have, namely my germinal substance. As long as I'm here, you're here.

peacegirl to Maturin:

Meshell Ndegeocello - You've Really Got A Hold On...

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter Chuck.

Yes, peacegirl, you've made it abundantly clear that the Authentic Text just doesn't matter to you. You've rejected it - you have to, so that you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre.

For example, you say:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe homosexuality is completely genetic. Maybe not being able to find a partner (like when a person is in prison), or a bad experience (which can lead someone to choose the same sex in their next relationship), which may be a very small percentage of people who are gay.

That, of course, completely and explicitly rejects the plain language of the Authentic Text, which states in a manner that brooks no opposition: "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love."

peacegirl, it is no surprise to anyone here that you reject the Authentic Text.

But I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and the Authentic Text does matter to me. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I just think that it's fair for people to be aware that your Corrupted Text is Corrupt and fraudulent, before they shell out $41.00 for it.

[But]

Ooo, we are back to the dog eyes crap again.

peacegirl, why do dogs react differently to pictures of people they know as opposed to strangers?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This study's methodology is very suspect no matter how formal they try to make it look, number one because they are using a one to four second time difference to come to certain conclusions about whether the dog found a picture more appealing or familiar. The whole study's validity is questionable. We know that dogs can recognize other dogs, and they may be able to recognize human faces. They may also be able to distinguish inanimate objects from animal and human faces and be uninterested in inverted objects because they have no meaning to the dog, but this does not prove that they can differentiate between one face and another. This study did not come close to proving this, and I think you know this deep down inside, so why are you using it at all? There are much better strategies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yes, peacegirl, you've made it abundantly clear that the Authentic Text just doesn't matter to you. You've rejected it - you have to, so that you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre.

For example, you say:

That, of course, completely and explicitly rejects the plain language of the Authentic Text, which states in a manner that brooks no opposition: "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love."

That is not the language he was referring to, and you know it. His discoveries are explained in a way that brooks no opposition if you are capable of understanding what he is saying. Obviously, you are not capable.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, it is no surprise to anyone here that you reject the Authentic Text.

But I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and the Authentic Text does matter to me. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I just think that it's fair for people to be aware that your Corrupted Text is Corrupt and fraudulent, before they shell out $41.00 for it.

Your default MO.

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, truly I am compelled by my own free will to be the True Steward of the Authentic Text, just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8. As for us in my "Revolution in Thought" thread, we interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we do so without blame from you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Ooo, we are back to the dog eyes crap again.

peacegirl, why do dogs react differently to pictures of people they know as opposed to strangers?

I do know this deep down inside, and I think you know this deep down inside too. These type of experiments do not prove what you hope it proves. My dog definitely recognizes other dogs when we're out walking by their shape and gait. Dogs may recognize aggression from other dogs by their head position. Dogs can also be trained to understand commands; they may even learn associations between a number of words and objects. But this does not prove that dogs can recognize facial features from a picture which involves a higher order processing.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs may recognize aggression from another dog. Dogs can also be trained to do understand commands; they may even learn associations between a number of words and objects.

And somehow, this helps proves that the eyes are not a sense organ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, truly I am compelled by my own free will to be the True Steward of the Authentic Text, just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8. As for us in my "Revolution in Thought" thread, we interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we do so without blame from you.

You are compelled, of your own free will (of your own desire) to pretend to be the steward because it is gives you great satisfaction. You bore me Chuck.