A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Welcome back, dear. 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. You can imagine how embarrassing that was. 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”?

Would you please STFU David. Your alter ego is not impressing me!

[But]

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

So how do you think it should be construed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

So how do you think it should be construed?

I already answered you.

[ChuckF]

Oh. Ok. So you said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So when the Authentic Text states 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" what this means is that 98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence because of..."people not being able to find someone of their own sex?" Do you mean people not being able to find someone of the opposite sex?

peacegirl, from what data set is this conclusion derived? What facts support this conclusion?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Haha. Dumb bitch doesn't even have the fucking book!

What happened to checking out Imgur? Was that just another lie? LOL!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would be so proud of me for my effort.

He would be utterly disgusted with the mess you have made of things. You have taken the good bits out, added stupid bits in, failed to sell a single book, and wasted ten years online lying to strangers about your corrupted text. No wonder he never trusted you with the authentic text!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He would be utterly disgusted with the mess you have made of things. You have taken the good bits out, added stupid bits in, failed to sell a single book, and wasted ten years online lying to strangers about your corrupted text. No wonder he never trusted you with the authentic text!

You cannot tell me what he would have said because you don't know. I do know because I was his daughter and could predict what he might have said. He probably would have suggested that I leave this forum but he would have understood my reasons for sticking it out as long as I did. He would never have criticized me for my effort.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Oh. Ok. So you said:

So when the Authentic Text states 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" what this means is that 98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence because of..."people not being able to find someone of their own sex?" Do you mean people not being able to find someone of the opposite sex?

peacegirl, from what data set is this conclusion derived? What facts support this conclusion?

This was an assumption based on the belief that the environment has something to do with it. Whatever. This statement does not invalidate his 3 discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Haha. Dumb bitch doesn't even have the fucking book!

What happened to checking out Imgur? Was that just another lie? LOL!

I have all his books!

[Vivisectus]

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.

Far, far from it. By inserting anti-scientific claptrap and more unsupported claims you make a book that was merely unscientific positively anti-scientific! A book that is supposed to be taken seriously by scientists and verified!

It is like trying to get across a new idea in the field of geology, and then using the findings of young earth creationists as an example: not just counterproductive, but really, really stupid! What on earth where you thinking?

Apart from this it is extremely unprincipled to turn someone else's book into a vehicle for your anti-vaxx agenda. You should be ashamed, trying to take advantage of someone's attempt at saving the world to get your anti-vaccination propaganda out there.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an assumption based on the belief that the environment has something to do with it. Whatever. This statement does not invalidate his 3 discoveries.

So according to you the book contain assumptions that are presented as claims? And you just decide which is which?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot tell me what he would have said because you don't know. I do know because I was his daughter and could predict what he might have said. He probably would have suggested that I leave this forum but he would have understood my reasons for sticking it out as long as I did. He would never have criticized me for my effort.

He would have criticized you for ruining his book, failing to sell a single copy, and turning him into a complete laughing stock all across the internet. He would not have been impressed with your blatant lying either.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have all his books!

No you don't!

Look at how you lie!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Far, far from it. By inserting anti-scientific claptrap and more unsupported claims you make a book that was merely unscientific positively anti-scientific! A book that is supposed to be taken seriously by scientists and verified!

It is like trying to get across a new idea in the field of geology, and then using the findings of young earth creationists as an example: not just counterproductive, but really, really stupid! What on earth where you thinking?

Apart from this it is extremely unprincipled to turn someone else's book into a vehicle for your anti-vaxx agenda. You should be ashamed, trying to take advantage of someone's attempt at saving the world to get your anti-vaccination propaganda out there.

I'm sorry but I was not being anti-vaccine. I was saying that vaccines will not be mandated and why. There is much controversy over the studies that claim that vaccines don't cause the injuries that have been reported.
Someone who is interested in these discoveries would see why I used this as an example and if they don't like it, the book is probably not for them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you don't!

Look at how you lie!

And if I showed you I owned his books, for 5 minutes you would be appeased only to call me a liar once again. You know it as well as I.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if I showed you I owned his books, for 5 minutes you would be appeased only to call me a liar once again. You know it as well as I.

You won't show that you have the authentic text because you DON'T have the authentic text. You know it as well as I. So why are you lying about it?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an assumption based on the belief that the environment has something to do with it. Whatever. This statement does not invalidate his 3 discoveries.

Firstly,I have to give you credit for finally acknowledging that at least one of Lessans' claims is merely an assumption. That is progress, of a sort.

Secondly, you deserve additional credit for acknowledging that his assumption was belief based and not fact based. Again, that is progress, of a sort.

Thirdly, I have to agree with you that Lessans' assumption(s) do not invalidate his 3 alleged discoveries.

However, his ignorant and unsupported assumptions do damage his credibility with regard to all of the claims he makes. Claims which are all grounded on assumptions that are belief based and unsupported by fact or evidence. I know you won't understand why this undermines his credibility or why credibility is important. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the very concept of credibility or why it is important. You do this every time you cite sources that lack even the most basic degree of credibility.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Someone who is interested in these discoveries would see why I used this as an example and if they don't like it, the book is probably not for them.

Lessans's book(s), particularly your corrupted version of the same is not for anyone who has at least two functioning brain cells to rub together.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You won't show that you have the authentic text because you DON'T have the authentic text. You know it as well as I. So why are you lying about it?

I think that this whole conceit about peacegirl not having the orginal text(s) is a bit silly. It is clear to me that she has, or has had, copies of the orginal texts in her possession. It is just not possible that she could have authored the corrupted version all on her own. She must have had access to original texts upon which to practice her Raphaelization. I think that is quite likely that she is simply intellectually unequiped to master the details of copying and posting images to the board. One will never go broke by betting on her essential ineptness.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think that this whole conceit about peacegirl not having the orginal text(s) is a bit silly. It is clear to me that she has, or has had, copies of the orginal texts in her possession. It is just not possible that she could have authored the corrupted version all on her own. She must have had access to original texts upon which to practice her Raphaelization.

She doesn't have the original version ChuckF has. Just look at the lengths she is going to, to avoid showing she has it. It is clear that her father withheld from her his authentic text, leaving her only with his rejected and inferior editions. It's not just that she is technologically inept (though there is that too), as she is deliberately evading making any attempt to upload a photo.

Just look at her pathetic weaseling excuses. First her scanner is broken. Then she can't find a cable for her phone. Then people are being meanies so she won't try. Then she will look at Imgur later. Then she can't handle this anymore and runs away. Then she's back but can't find the right button to upload an image (despite being given screenshots showing her where it is). Then she ignores prompts about Imgur and pretends not to understand why we are even asking for a photo in the first place. Her dishonesty is disgraceful.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an assumption based on the belief that the environment has something to do with it. Whatever. This statement does not invalidate his 3 discoveries.

Ok, so there is no factual basis for this statement. Fair enough.

peacegirl, did you remove this statement from the Corrupted Text?

peacegirl, did you edit this statement out of the recordings?

Begin at 16:20 and read along, beginning at the bottom of page 65; you will find that the tape itself has been corrupted to remove this statement. The tape itself has been rather inartfully distorted to make it appear that the author was referring to adultery rather than homo-sexual intercourse.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered you.

Typical Peacegirl S.O.P. claim that she has already answered when she hasn't, and then continue to lie about giving an answer. She does the same thing about Lessans providing proof for his claims, he never provided any proof or described any of the claimed "observations" that he made to support those unsupported claims.