A revolution in thought - Page 1939

peacegirl · #**48451** 08-09-2016, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Divorce is always possible especially if someone has already fallen in love with someone else.

With someone else's sexual organs, that is.

I forgive you for being so ignorant. It will still be hard to accept your flagrant misinterpretation of the text which has nothing to do with this book.

Whoa, whoa - we don't fall in love with sexual organs regardless of what "her" features are like? Because that is what the Authentic Text says.

I'm just letting you know how confused you are in an effort to make this book look ridiculous . I hope people are catching on.

ChuckF · #**48452** 08-09-2016, 02:33 PM

The Authentic Text indicates that [we] will discover 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. Is this in the Corrupted Text?

Spacemonkey · #**48453** 08-09-2016, 02:37 PM

We can hardly expect Peacegirl to know what her father really meant when she doesn't even have the authentic text. She is still struggling to come to terms with the fact that he never entrusted her with his core material.

Vivisectus · #**48454** 08-09-2016, 02:42 PM

Look at all this drivel:

Quote:

Chapter Seven: The Wisdom of Socrates

Added to
this, as early as two months the baby is receiving a series of
vaccinations that are given on schedule with more and more being
added to the list. Some of the vaccinations he will receive are a
Hep shot if he did not receive it in the hospital, a DtaP shot, Hib
shot, IVP shot, and PVC shot. Some doctors will also give the
baby the vaccine for Rotavirus. Recently, the AAP has begun
advocating ‘firing’ parents who don’t conform to the CDC’s
overloaded vaccine schedule, the schedule with 36 vaccines on it,
almost double the average of 30 other first world countries. The
schedule that has never been tested for combination risk.

There
has been a growing public and professional concern over the
immediate and long term effects of these multiple vaccines (several
shots given simultaneously), as well as the toxic ingredients used
to produce them, but the pediatrician will tell the mother that it is
for the baby’s well-being by reassuring her that the benefits far
outweigh the risks. He may explain that without these
immunizations the baby is not protected and the disease that once
killed so many could easily come back. Because she wants to do
what is best for her child, she concedes.

In some cases, however,
a child could have a severe reaction and be injured by the
vaccination that was intended to help him. There are an increasing
number of physicians who claim the risks do not outweigh the
benefits. The following quotations are from doctors and
researchers who believe there is a possible link between
vaccinations and the chronic childhood illnesses that are so
common today.

“Vaccine adverse effects are amply documented and are far more
significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious
diseases. Immunizations not only did not prevent any infectious
diseases, they caused more suffering and more deaths than has any
other human activity in the entire history of medical intervention.
It will be decades before the mopping-up after the disasters caused
by childhood vaccination will be completed.” — Dr. Viera
Scheibner, Ph.D

“Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of
childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large
fraction (say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability
and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an
impassioned crusade for universal vaccination.” — Association of
American Physicians & Surgeons

“Instead of epidemics of measles and polio, we have epidemics of
chronic autoimmune and neurological disease: In the last 20
years rates of asthma and attention-deficit disorder have doubled,
diabetes and learning disabilities have tripled, chronic arthritis
now affects nearly one in five Americans and autism has increased
by 300 percent or more in many states.” — Barbara Low Fisher

“Doctors maintain that the (MMR) inoculation is necessary to
prevent
measles encephalitis, which they say occurs about once in 1,000
cases. After decades of experience with measles, I question this
statistic, and so do many other pediatricians. The incidence of
1/1000 may be accurate for children who live in conditions of
poverty and malnutrition, but in the middle-and upper–income
brackets, if one excludes simple sleepiness from the measles itself,
the incidence of true encephalitis is probably more like 1/10,000
or 1/100,000. Furthermore, about 75 percent of these cases will
not show evidence of brain damage.” — Dr. Mendelsohn

“Most parents today find it quite difficult to understand why they
have to have their child vaccinated against this particular disease
(measles) when their mothers used to organize measles parties to
ensure all the children of the family had it! In fact a mild dose of
measles stimulates the immature immune system, in the correct
sequence, to develop naturally, thereby strengthening the child
generally.” — Christina J Head MCHRs. Hon

“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the
treatment of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run
against so many histories of little children who had never seen a
sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years
that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t
put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong.
Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they
were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” — Dr.
William Howard Hay

“Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious
brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling
pages of medical journals. In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used
to induce encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals, which is
characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging.” — Harold E.
Buttram, M.D. & F. Edward Yazbak, M.D.

“The number of vaccination deaths overwhelms disease (pertussis)
deaths: 32 in a three year period according to the CDC (1991-
94), and only 8 in 1993, the last peak incidence year...Simply put,
the vaccine may be more than 100 times more deadly than the
disease.” — Alan Philips, J.D., Attorney and Counselor at Law
(this doesn’t take into account the SIDS-DPT connection).

“Probably 20% of American children — one youngster in five —
suffers from “development disability.” This is a stupefying
figure...the primary cause of encephalitis — is the childhood
vaccination program. To be specific, a large proportion of the
millions of U.S. children and adults suffering from autism,
seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia, and other
shoots or branches of the hydraheaded entity called “development
disabilities,” owe their disorders to one or another of the vaccines
against childhood diseases.” — Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.

NVICP has paid out for 50 deaths per year: The U.S. Federal
Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(NVICP) has paid out over 724.4 million dollars to parents of
vaccine injured and killed children, in taxpayer dollars. The
NVICP has received over 5000 petitions since 1988, including over
700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still 2800 total death
and injury cases pending that may take years to resolve (NVICP,
Health Resources and Services Administration).

Although pediatrics will continue as a branch of medicine,
these specialists, as well as those who set national guidelines, will
have no choice but to be completely honest with themselves for the
very first time. They will need to be extremely careful what they
advise because they would never want to be responsible for making
matters worse.

This does not mean that doctors aren’t doing
everything possible to keep their young patients healthy, but the
knowledge that they would never be blamed if a child was harmed
by their recommendations adds a tremendous amount of weight.
Honesty will be the best policy even if they have to admit they
don’t know which course of action is best. As a consequence,
mandatory vaccination programs will no longer be enforced due to
severe reactions in a small percentage of children, some of which
are fatal. This means that doctors will give parents the most up-to-
date information, but the parents will need to decide for themselves
whether the end justifies the means, especially when there is no
way of predicting which child will regress into chronic poor health
or have a life threatening reaction.

Moving forward

Therefore, it is
important to recognize that many illnesses are nothing but words,
as strange as this may seem, which Montaigne and other
philosophers perceived. When someone does physical or other
harm to another without justification then we will know that he is
mentally disturbed, but this is virtually impossible in the new
world. Until then, God is forcing us to leave the mind alone. Now
tell me; is this Supreme Being we call God a genius, or isn’t He?
God, or the force that controls our movement in the direction of
greater satisfaction, is forcing us to rely on our body to take care of
98% of all its problems by making all mankind realize that they
don’t know the truth about a tremendous number of these things,
they only thought they knew.

All this is passed off as the words of the Messiah. Guess how many of these he ever even knew about?

peacegirl · #**48455** 08-09-2016, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look at all this drivel:

Quote:

Chapter Seven: The Wisdom of Socrates

Added to
this, as early as two months the baby is receiving a series of
vaccinations that are given on schedule with more and more being
added to the list. Some of the vaccinations he will receive are a
Hep shot if he did not receive it in the hospital, a DtaP shot, Hib
shot, IVP shot, and PVC shot. Some doctors will also give the
baby the vaccine for Rotavirus. Recently, the AAP has begun
advocating ‘firing’ parents who don’t conform to the CDC’s
overloaded vaccine schedule, the schedule with 36 vaccines on it,
almost double the average of 30 other first world countries. The
schedule that has never been tested for combination risk.

There
has been a growing public and professional concern over the
immediate and long term effects of these multiple vaccines (several
shots given simultaneously), as well as the toxic ingredients used
to produce them, but the pediatrician will tell the mother that it is
for the baby’s well-being by reassuring her that the benefits far
outweigh the risks. He may explain that without these
immunizations the baby is not protected and the disease that once
killed so many could easily come back. Because she wants to do
what is best for her child, she concedes.

In some cases, however,
a child could have a severe reaction and be injured by the
vaccination that was intended to help him. There are an increasing
number of physicians who claim the risks do not outweigh the
benefits. The following quotations are from doctors and
researchers who believe there is a possible link between
vaccinations and the chronic childhood illnesses that are so
common today.

“Vaccine adverse effects are amply documented and are far more
significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious
diseases. Immunizations not only did not prevent any infectious
diseases, they caused more suffering and more deaths than has any
other human activity in the entire history of medical intervention.
It will be decades before the mopping-up after the disasters caused
by childhood vaccination will be completed.” — Dr. Viera
Scheibner, Ph.D

“Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of
childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large
fraction (say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability
and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an
impassioned crusade for universal vaccination.” — Association of
American Physicians & Surgeons

“Instead of epidemics of measles and polio, we have epidemics of
chronic autoimmune and neurological disease: In the last 20
years rates of asthma and attention-deficit disorder have doubled,
diabetes and learning disabilities have tripled, chronic arthritis
now affects nearly one in five Americans and autism has increased
by 300 percent or more in many states.” — Barbara Low Fisher

“Doctors maintain that the (MMR) inoculation is necessary to
prevent
measles encephalitis, which they say occurs about once in 1,000
cases. After decades of experience with measles, I question this
statistic, and so do many other pediatricians. The incidence of
1/1000 may be accurate for children who live in conditions of
poverty and malnutrition, but in the middle-and upper–income
brackets, if one excludes simple sleepiness from the measles itself,
the incidence of true encephalitis is probably more like 1/10,000
or 1/100,000. Furthermore, about 75 percent of these cases will
not show evidence of brain damage.” — Dr. Mendelsohn

“Most parents today find it quite difficult to understand why they
have to have their child vaccinated against this particular disease
(measles) when their mothers used to organize measles parties to
ensure all the children of the family had it! In fact a mild dose of
measles stimulates the immature immune system, in the correct
sequence, to develop naturally, thereby strengthening the child
generally.” — Christina J Head MCHRs. Hon

“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the
treatment of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run
against so many histories of little children who had never seen a
sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years
that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t
put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong.
Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they
were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” — Dr.
William Howard Hay

“Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious
brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling
pages of medical journals. In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used
to induce encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals, which is
characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging.” — Harold E.
Buttram, M.D. & F. Edward Yazbak, M.D.

“The number of vaccination deaths overwhelms disease (pertussis)
deaths: 32 in a three year period according to the CDC (1991-
94), and only 8 in 1993, the last peak incidence year...Simply put,
the vaccine may be more than 100 times more deadly than the
disease.” — Alan Philips, J.D., Attorney and Counselor at Law
(this doesn’t take into account the SIDS-DPT connection).

“Probably 20% of American children — one youngster in five —
suffers from “development disability.” This is a stupefying
figure...the primary cause of encephalitis — is the childhood
vaccination program. To be specific, a large proportion of the
millions of U.S. children and adults suffering from autism,
seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia, and other
shoots or branches of the hydraheaded entity called “development
disabilities,” owe their disorders to one or another of the vaccines
against childhood diseases.” — Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.

NVICP has paid out for 50 deaths per year: The U.S. Federal
Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(NVICP) has paid out over 724.4 million dollars to parents of
vaccine injured and killed children, in taxpayer dollars. The
NVICP has received over 5000 petitions since 1988, including over
700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still 2800 total death
and injury cases pending that may take years to resolve (NVICP,
Health Resources and Services Administration).

Although pediatrics will continue as a branch of medicine,
these specialists, as well as those who set national guidelines, will
have no choice but to be completely honest with themselves for the
very first time. They will need to be extremely careful what they
advise because they would never want to be responsible for making
matters worse.

This does not mean that doctors aren’t doing
everything possible to keep their young patients healthy, but the
knowledge that they would never be blamed if a child was harmed
by their recommendations adds a tremendous amount of weight.
Honesty will be the best policy even if they have to admit they
don’t know which course of action is best. As a consequence,
mandatory vaccination programs will no longer be enforced due to
severe reactions in a small percentage of children, some of which
are fatal. This means that doctors will give parents the most up-to-
date information, but the parents will need to decide for themselves
whether the end justifies the means, especially when there is no
way of predicting which child will regress into chronic poor health
or have a life threatening reaction.

Moving forward

Therefore, it is
important to recognize that many illnesses are nothing but words,
as strange as this may seem, which Montaigne and other
philosophers perceived. When someone does physical or other
harm to another without justification then we will know that he is
mentally disturbed, but this is virtually impossible in the new
world. Until then, God is forcing us to leave the mind alone. Now
tell me; is this Supreme Being we call God a genius, or isn’t He?
God, or the force that controls our movement in the direction of
greater satisfaction, is forcing us to rely on our body to take care of
98% of all its problems by making all mankind realize that they
don’t know the truth about a tremendous number of these things,
they only thought they knew.

All this is passed off as the words of the Messiah. Guess how many of these he ever even knew about?

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the responsibility of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small. Why would he want to put himself in this position when his income is not dependent on this dishonesty, while also knowing that he would not be blamed even if the child died directly as a result of his recommendation?

Vivisectus · #**48456** 08-09-2016, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's funny - the corrupted text does not mention that divorce is still possible. If the man can afford to pay for multiple families, that is. Or if he is not getting his rocks off satisfactorily.

You are the one corrupting this book. Divorce is always possible especially if someone has already fallen in love with someone else. After they become citizens, they will be free to leave, no questions asked. The whole purpose of the chapter on marriage is to show that when the conditions that lead to anger, resentment, and dissatisfaction in general are removed (which includes other outside factors such as economic insecurity), and the principles applied, he may not want to leave after all. This thread is a perfect example of how people can purposely misconstrue what they read because that's what they want to do.

Not according to your book. Or according to the things you have been saying: according to you, personality wont matter because no-one would have a abd personality anymore, and it would simply become impossible for anyone to want to leave.

Now all of a sudden, when confronted with what your father actually said, you are backtracking and saying there just wont be as many divorces.

Your version really is very different from the original.

There is no way I'm backtracking. My version is verbatim other than my examples. There is nothing underhanded.

So when you quoted from your corrupted version

Quote:

The enjoyment of a sexual
relation which in this setting will make them fall more and more in
love would not cost their parents a dime. They will be completely free
to do what they consider better for themselves although the knowledge
that man’s will is not free will give them no choice but to prevent
either from ever hurting the other. They will remain together, as you
will soon have verified, not because to leave would break the other’s
heart, but primarily because it would break their own heart since the
love for their partner will never wane.

You meant something else?

peacegirl · #**48457** 08-09-2016, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing corrupt about the text. Most of the book is comprised of Lessans' own words.

The Corrupted Text is corrupt because it is composed of words other than the author's own words.

There is only one authentic text, and that is the Authentic Text written by the author and published in his lifetime. Other texts are corrupt, like the Corrupted Text.

No, they are not corrupted. They are a compilation of all his works, which I stated in the book.

You changed the wording and even added whole passages without indicating which are his words and which are yours. That's extremely misleading.

I added a few examples and a few words here and there. I also took out the word "molecules", which you already know. I did not change the concepts at all.

Of course you changed the concepts! He did NOT say that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly. YOU said that! He said the opposite, as we now know, now that we have seen the authentic text before you corrupted it.

Quote:

His first book he claimed he was from another planet and was bringing new knowledge to us earthlings.

Are you saying there is still an earlier "authentic" text, even before the one ChuckF holds in his hands? Just how many "authentic" texts are there? Like turtles, is it "authentic" texts all the way down?

Quote:

Unfortunately, this didn't work either. People who believed in aliens and UFO's were calling him.

Didn't work?

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many people believe in aliens and alien visitations, and how much disposable income they have? If you had kept the original version of the work, with him posing as an alien, you might already have had a best seller! You have no marketing sense at all, do you?

BTW, if you would ever bother to read a link given you, you would know that Norman Swartz, in his book The Concept of Physical Law, posed as a Martian to bring new knowledge to earth!

This has nothing to do with having a best seller at the expense of the knowledge. Swartz does not have the answer David because man does not have free will of any kind. You also got very confused when Lessans said, I am compelled, Of My Own Free Will. Your confusion is due to your lack of due diligence studying this work, nothing more.

Vivisectus · #**48458** 08-09-2016, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the risk of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small. Why would he want to put himself in this position when his income is not dependent on this dishonesty, while also knowing that he would not be blamed even if the child died directly as a result of his recommendation?

So you inserted your own anti-scientific biases and junk science, paragraph after paragraph of idiotic anti-vaxx tripe, into an important book meant to save the world? Without making sure people know this is a later addition, and not something the author even knew about?

That is beyond shameful. You knowingly try to pass off your ill-informed anti-vaxx opinions as the opinion of someone who writes books "to all mankind", and into "the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written", and into a blueprint to save the world really soon forty years ago.

Not only do you dishonestly pass your opinion off as his, you jeopardize a book that requires scientific recognition in order to save the world by inserting stuff that is widely regarded as absurdly anti-scientific.

And you call yourself a steward of this knowledge? I would hate to see what someone who is out to discredit it looks like!

peacegirl · #**48459** 08-09-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the risk of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small. Why would he want to put himself in this position when his income is not dependent on this dishonesty, while also knowing that he would not be blamed even if the child died directly as a result of his recommendation?

So you inserted your own anti-scientific biases and junk science, paragraph after paragraph of idiotic anti-vaxx tripe, into an important book meant to save the world? Without making sure people know this is a later addition, and not something the author even knew about?

That is beyond shameful. You knowingly try to pass off your ill-informed anti-vaxx opinions as the opinion of someone who writes books "to all mankind", and into "the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written", and into a blueprint to save the world really soon forty years ago.

Not only do you dishonestly pass your opinion off as his, you jeopardize a book that requires scientific recognition in order to save the world by inserting stuff that is widely regarded as absurdly anti-scientific.

And you call yourself a steward of this knowledge? I would hate to see what someone who is out to discredit it looks like!

Dupe

peacegirl · #**48460** 08-09-2016, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the risk of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small. Why would he want to put himself in this position when his income is not dependent on this dishonesty, while also knowing that he would not be blamed even if the child died directly as a result of his recommendation?

So you inserted your own anti-scientific biases and junk science, paragraph after paragraph of idiotic anti-vaxx tripe, into an important book meant to save the world? Without making sure people know this is a later addition, and not something the author even knew about?

That is beyond shameful. You knowingly try to pass off your ill-informed anti-vaxx opinions as the opinion of someone who writes books "to all mankind", and into "the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written", and into a blueprint to save the world really soon forty years ago.

Not only do you dishonestly pass your opinion off as his, you jeopardize a book that requires scientific recognition in order to save the world by inserting stuff that is widely regarded as absurdly anti-scientific.

And you call yourself a steward of this knowledge? I would hate to see what someone who is out to discredit it looks like!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the risk of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small. Why would he want to put himself in this position when his income is not dependent on this dishonesty, while also knowing that he would not be blamed even if the child died directly as a result of his recommendation?

So you inserted your own anti-scientific biases and junk science, paragraph after paragraph of idiotic anti-vaxx tripe, into an important book meant to save the world? Without making sure people know this is a later addition, and not something the author even knew about?

That is beyond shameful. You knowingly try to pass off your ill-informed anti-vaxx opinions as the opinion of someone who writes books "to all mankind", and into "the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written", and into a blueprint to save the world really soon forty years ago.

Not only do you dishonestly pass your opinion off as his, you jeopardize a book that requires scientific recognition in order to save the world by inserting stuff that is widely regarded as absurdly anti-scientific.

And you call yourself a steward of this knowledge? I would hate to see what someone who is out to discredit it looks like!

There was nothing inappropriate with my example. Vaccines will not be mandatory because no one will want to take responsibility for a poor outcome, should something go wrong. I wasn't spouting off anti-vaccine tripe. I was trying to show that doctors themselves will want to give the parent all the information and leave the decision entirely up to them. Doctors will be forced to be honest with themselves (which you have yet to understand) as to what they know or don't know regarding the human body.

davidm · #**48461** 08-09-2016, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Divorce is always possible especially if someone has already fallen in love with someone else.

With someone else's sexual organs, that is.

I forgive you for being so ignorant. It will still be hard to accept your flagrant misinterpretation of the text which has nothing to do with this book.

Whoa, whoa - we don't fall in love with sexual organs regardless of what "her" features are like? Because that is what the Authentic Text says.

I'm just letting you know how confused you are in an effort to make this book look ridiculous . I hope people are catching on.

Catch on to what? It's right there in both texts -- the authentic text and the corrupted text: He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

What is actually wrong with you, that you lie so transparently about stuff that is so easily checked? What do you hope to accomplish with such a strategy? To confirm that you are a transparent liar?

davidm · #**48462** 08-09-2016, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the responsibility of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small.

What is wrong with you? No doctor does this now. No doctor, and one here, has ever claimed that vaccines are completely risk-free -- only that the very small risks of vaccines vastly outweigh the known risks of not vaccinating. Nor has anyone here, or anyone in the medical community, ever claimed that vaccines should be mandatory for everyone. All of this has been explained to you over and over again -- what is wrong with you that you fail to comprehend this?

Moreover, have you any idea how unethical it is to remove great chunks of a writer's original text without his consent or permission, while adding to it great chunks that he never wrote or even thought of, and then trying to pass off the corrupted text as the author's authentic work? What is wrong with you, that you are such a sleazebag?

peacegirl · #**48463** 08-09-2016, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Divorce is always possible especially if someone has already fallen in love with someone else.

With someone else's sexual organs, that is.

I forgive you for being so ignorant. It will still be hard to accept your flagrant misinterpretation of the text which has nothing to do with this book.

Whoa, whoa - we don't fall in love with sexual organs regardless of what "her" features are like? Because that is what the Authentic Text says.

I'm just letting you know how confused you are in an effort to make this book look ridiculous . I hope people are catching on.

If you read the passage in context (which you are terrible at) you would know what he meant. But you don't want to understand what he meant because that would mean he could be right about the eyes.

Catch on to what? It's right there in both texts -- the authentic text and the corrupted text: He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

What is actually wrong with you, that you lie so transparently about stuff that is so easily checked? What do you hope to accomplish with such a strategy? To confirm that you are a transparent liar?

I know what he wrote. As you can see, I wrote much of his words verbatim. You are failing miserably due to the fact that you're really not interested. You just want to discredit him by purposely misinterpreting the meaning behind his words.

davidm · #**48464** 08-09-2016, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what he wrote. As you can see, I wrote much of his words verbatim.

First, one does not write someone else's words, verbatim or otherwise; one transcribes them verbatim -- which you plainly have not done. You ripped away huge chunks of text that were by far the most entertaining, showing your father to be a Henry Miller-like wag and raconteur; and then you inserted your own diatribes against vaccines and god knows what else -- no doubt you also made up the imaginary convos with rabbis, which cast your father as a pompous blowhard. ChuckF, the actual steward of the authentic text, can let us know if that rabbi stuff was in the original.

Quote:

You are failing miserably due to the fact that you're really not interested. You just want to discredit him by purposely misinterpreting the meaning behind his words.

Failing at what, dipshit? :lol:

Here's what he wrote:

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

What the fuck is there to misinterpret? Tell us, please, how "He will then fall in love with her sexual organs" means something else.

Tell us, please!

The reason you desperately hope to disavow this plain sentence is because you yourself no doubt know how stupid it is! Well, in that case, you should have ripped it out of the authentic text while you were busy completely rewriting the rest of what he actually said!

peacegirl · #**48465** 08-09-2016, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I added this. In the new world no doctor in his right mind would want to take the responsibility of telling his patient that a vaccine could do no harm, knowing full well that there is a risk, however small.

What is wrong with you? No doctor does this now. No doctor, and one here, has ever claimed that vaccines are completely risk-free -- only that the very small risks of vaccines vastly outweigh the known risks of not vaccinating.

By saying the benefits far outweigh the risks, the doctor is expecting the parent to concede. Did you know that some doctors actually fire those parents who don't concede? If a doctor knows there are risks, how can he be sure that one of his young patients isn't the next to be injured or even die? He doesn't. Anytime there are risks involved (and there may be more risks than once believed) the doctor in the new world would never want to assume responsibility which means he would have to leave the decision up to the parent, where it belongs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Nor has anyone here, or anyone in the medical community, ever claimed that vaccines should be mandatory for everyone. All of this has been explained to you over and over again -- what is wrong with you that you fail to comprehend this?

Many states are trying to remove all exemptions (except for medical) which will make it almost impossible for parents to have a choice in the matter, especially if they need to send their kids to public school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, have you any idea how unethical it is to remove great chunks of a writer's original text without his consent or permission, while adding to it great chunks that he never wrote or even thought of, and then trying to pass off the corrupted text as the author's authentic work? What is wrong with you, that you are such a sleazebag?

I did not leave out big chunks of his material. I compiled his 7 books which means I put things back in that he took out. He would be so proud of me for my effort.

peacegirl · #**48466** 08-09-2016, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what he wrote. As you can see, I wrote much of his words verbatim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

First, one does not write someone else's words, verbatim or otherwise; one transcribes them verbatim -- which you plainly have not done. You ripped away huge chunks of text that were by far the most entertaining, showing your father to be a Henry Miller-like wag and raconteur; and then you inserted your own diatribes against vaccines and god knows what else -- no doubt you also made up the imaginary convos with rabbis, which cast your father as a pompous blowhard. ChuckF, the actual steward of the authentic text, can let us know if that rabbi stuff was in the original.

If you like his original book, I have no problem with you buying it. I'm glad it's entertaining to you. Unfortunately, you are using this to discredit him even more and to make a laughingstock out of him. I see right through you David. Haha, Chuck is not the steward of this work. The rabbi stuff was in one of his books. That did not make him a pompous blowhard.

Quote:

You are failing miserably due to the fact that you're really not interested. You just want to discredit him by purposely misinterpreting the meaning behind his words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Failing at what, dipshit? :lol:

Here's what he wrote:

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

What the fuck is there to misinterpret? Tell us, please, how "He will then fall in love with her sexual organs" means something else.

Tell us, please!

The reason you desperately hope to disavow this plain sentence is because you yourself no doubt know how stupid it is! Well, in that case, you should have ripped it out of the authentic text while you were busy completely rewriting the rest of what he actually said!

No David, that was an important section but you immediately saw that one sentence and ran with it. You cannot pull sentences out of context and think you understand this work.

peacegirl · #**48467** 08-09-2016, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's funny - the corrupted text does not mention that divorce is still possible. If the man can afford to pay for multiple families, that is. Or if he is not getting his rocks off satisfactorily.

You are the one corrupting this book. Divorce is always possible especially if someone has already fallen in love with someone else. After they become citizens, they will be free to leave, no questions asked. The whole purpose of the chapter on marriage is to show that when the conditions that lead to anger, resentment, and dissatisfaction in general are removed (which includes other outside factors such as economic insecurity), and the principles applied, he may not want to leave after all. This thread is a perfect example of how people can purposely misconstrue what they read because that's what they want to do.

Not according to your book. Or according to the things you have been saying: according to you, personality wont matter because no-one would have a abd personality anymore, and it would simply become impossible for anyone to want to leave.

Now all of a sudden, when confronted with what your father actually said, you are backtracking and saying there just wont be as many divorces.

Your version really is very different from the original.

There is no way I'm backtracking. My version is verbatim other than my examples. There is nothing underhanded.

So when you quoted from your corrupted version

Quote:

The enjoyment of a sexual
relation which in this setting will make them fall more and more in
love would not cost their parents a dime. They will be completely free
to do what they consider better for themselves although the knowledge
that man’s will is not free will give them no choice but to prevent
either from ever hurting the other. They will remain together, as you
will soon have verified, not because to leave would break the other’s
heart, but primarily because it would break their own heart since the
love for their partner will never wane.

You meant something else?

What do you mean by this? This was in his book and it meant something very specific.

davidm · #**48468** 08-09-2016, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, that was an important section but you immediately saw that one sentence and ran with it. You cannot pull sentences out of context and think you understand this work.

Why don't you explain the context then?

BTW, when were you going to prove you have the authentic text by uploading a photo of it? Are you still struggling with managing your attachments? :chin:

davidm · #**48469** 08-09-2016, 07:26 PM

peacegirl, how does "He will then fall in love with her sexual organs" mean anything other than what it means? How does context change the plain meaning of the text? At best, the context can be used to justify the claim, not change the meaning of it. You know this perfectly well; you are embarrassed by what he wrote, and are desperately trying to handwave it away -- just as your embarrassment at his claim that it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed made you completely rewrite the passage to make it say something totally different. Why don't you just take out the line "he will then fall in love with her sexual organs" since it (rightly) embarrasses you so much? After all, you've had no compunction about completely mutilating the authentic text to date; why stop mutilating it now?

peacegirl · #**48470** 08-09-2016, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, that was an important section but you immediately saw that one sentence and ran with it. You cannot pull sentences out of context and think you understand this work.

Why don't you explain the context then?

BTW, when were you going to prove you have the authentic text by uploading a photo of it? Are you still struggling with managing your attachments? :chin:

If you had read anything instead of just skipping all over the place to look for lulz, you would know what the context is. I tried to upload one of the pages but it didn't work. I told Chuck to give me any page and I will type the first line. I'm not doing more than that.

peacegirl · #**48471** 08-09-2016, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, how does "He will then fall in love with her sexual organs" mean anything other than what it means? How does context change the plain meaning of the text? At best, the context can be used to justify the claim, not change the meaning of it. You know this perfectly well; you are embarrassed by what he wrote, and are desperately trying to handwave it away -- just as your embarrassment at his claim that it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed made you completely rewrite the passage to make it say something totally different. Why don't you just take out the line "he will then fall in love with her sexual organs" since it (rightly) embarrasses you so much? After all, you've had no compunction about completely mutilating the authentic text to date; why stop mutilating it now?

I am not taking it out because it is important in the context it was written. That other small change I made is trivial. I changed it only because people like you would not understand why it would be mathematically impossible and would make a big stink about it. I could very easily put his wording back. It certainly doesn't change the basic concept.

peacegirl · #**48472** 08-09-2016, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The Authentic Text indicates that [we] will discover 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. Is this in the Corrupted Text?

I didn't put that in my book because it would be misconstrued. He was thinking in terms of people not being able to find someone of their own sex. This often occurs in prison or when there is limited opportunity to meet someone. Obviously these are not the only reasons and he never meant to offend anyone. It wasn't necessary that he write anything about homosexuality but I guess he was trying to be all inclusive. Please don't make more out of this than need be. Again, this has nothing to do with the veracity of his discoveries.

ChuckF · #**48473** 08-09-2016, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The Authentic Text indicates that [we] will discover 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. Is this in the Corrupted Text?

I didn't put that in my book because it would be misconstrued.

Hm. How do you think it should be construed, exactly?

Florence Jellem · #**48474** 08-09-2016, 08:41 PM

Welcome back, dear. :wave:

It’s your friend Flo.

Everyone here says you went away a while to reset your brain. How does that work, exactly? Do you have take it into the Brain Shop to have it reset somehow?

When I couldn’t make my new laptop work — the screen was always blank — I took it into the Shop. The boys there all snickered at me. :snicker:

You can imagine how embarrassing that was. :sadcheer:

They explained to me that I had to depress a certain button “down” to turn it “on.”

Dear, do you have an “on” button for your brain? Have you ever considered pressing that button “down”?

peacegirl · #**48475** 08-09-2016, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The Authentic Text indicates that [we] will discover 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. Is this in the Corrupted Text?

I didn't put that in my book because it would be misconstrued.

Hm. How do you think it should be construed, exactly?

It's being misconstrued now. He meant no harm. He was not homophobic as you've all accused him of. This is crazy.