A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, you seem frustrated and angry. Maybe it is time for a thought exercise in two parts.

This is part one. Think about the following questions, and keep the answers in mind for part two. Do you find it frustrating to try to talk with someone who just posts the same old nonsense over and over again? Is it irritating when that person simply reiterates the same intentionally misguided misinterpretation over and over again, all the while ignoring any contrary evidence? Is it annoying when that person blithely asserts themselves as an authority, even where s/he has no actual knowledge, and indeed resists actual knowledge? Is it grating to see that person simply make things up and assert them as truth without any actual evidence?

This is part two. Keeping in mind your answers from part one, do you have any new insights into my Revolution in Thought thread?

All of those questions are applicable to you. You refuse to read the excerpts I posted, which came directly from my father's books. They are not my corruptions. You are trying very hard to disqualify him (not just me) just because you don't like that empirical testing wasn't used. As I said, his observations are not unfalsifiable and they will be carefully investigated one day. It's unfortunate that you can't put your doubts aside long enough to give him a chance. You've made enough fun of the book to turn anyone off unless they can see through you and your manipulations. Aren't your intentions to ruin it for him? In that respect, you won, at least in this forum. You got what you wanted. You'd rather throw this knowledge into the wastebasket and turn it into a joke. You just can't believe this is anything more than an assertion so you laugh. You are misguided.

[The Lone Ranger]

Aaaaand ... point missed entirely.

Why am I not surprised?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Aaaaand ... point missed entirely.

Why am I not surprised?

So what was his point Lone Ranger, or are you just trying to belittle me like you always do? If it irritates him this much, then he should leave. But he won't.

Here is what he wrote:

1. This is part one. Think about the following questions, and keep the answers in mind for part two. Do you find it frustrating to try to talk with someone who just posts the same old nonsense over and over again?

Yes, you do post the same old nonsense of being the true steward over and over again.

2. Is it irritating when that person simply reiterates the same intentionally misguided misinterpretation over and over again, all the while ignoring any contrary evidence?

What contrary evidence? He proves that man's will is not free. When you really see this for yourself, you will recognize that he was right. You just can't believe that such an important discovery would not be in the news.

2b. Is it annoying when that person blithely asserts themselves as an authority, even where s/he has no actual knowledge, and indeed resists actual knowledge? Is it grating to see that person simply make things up and assert them as truth without any actual evidence?

I am an authority on my father's work because I have studied it carefully for many years. You have not. Who are you accusing of setting themselves up as an authority when he/she has no actual knowledge, and resisting actual knowledge? My father knew what he was talking about. You are exactly the kind of person he said should not read this book. You know, the kind that thinks they know more than they actually do. And who are you to determine what is actual knowledge anyway? If you are purposely posting irritating repetitions as a way to imitate what you think I've been doing, you've done a good job. Problem is I have done none of those things. You are just an obstacle that I have learned to circumvent. The good news is that you have no power to prevent this new world from coming into existence, so it doesn't really matter what you have to say in the final analysis.

Skepticism is not the primary problem that is preventing this
knowledge from coming to light, as everyone who hears of my
discovery would be skeptical. The main problem is the pride of those
people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very
top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in
who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even
consent to listen you must qualify not by what you are prepared to
prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank. Do
you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give
me the time even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all
mankind.

This pride is the first half of the primary problem; that the
very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the
knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if
proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it
any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do,
could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and
knowledge is at stake? Have you noticed the parallels between the
Catholic Church in the middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot
be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look
through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves, because they were
so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in hands and
thus needed no verification), and today’s self-righteous “church” of
“scientificality” with its dogmas?

Therefore before I begin I would like
to ask a question of every reader but especially of philosophers,
professors and theologians. Is there the slightest possibility that the
knowledge you possess does not contain as much truth as you would
like to believe? Would you gamble your life or the lives of those you
love that you really know, or is there just the remotest chance that you
only think you know? What is the standard by which you judge the
veracity of your knowledge and wisdom; the fact that it was taught in
college? Is your determination of truth based on the fact that it was
written by a noted author, composed from your own analysis and
understanding, or revealed through heavenly inspiration? What
makes you so certain, so positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book
dares to oppose the three forces that control the thinking of mankind;
government, religion, and education; the most dangerous thinking of
all; the kind that really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed
but because of some fallacious standard presumes to know, I have
found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in
the fervent hope that I can break through this sound barrier of learned
ignorance, for which no one is to blame, and reach those who will be
able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before
another century passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of
lives.

Now be honest with yourselves; do you really know, or only
think you know? If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility
that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you
may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you and
others hold of yourselves; that the expression the blind leading the
blind could even pertain to you; I know this is difficult for you to
conceive; I say, if there is the slightest possibility you could be
mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I
cordially welcome your company aboard, otherwise, you had better not
read this book for my words are not meant for your ears. But should
you decide to accompany me on this voyage I would like to remind
you, once again, that this book is not a religious or philosophical tract
attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific
as you will see, and should the word ‘God’ seem incongruous kindly
remember Spinoza and you will understand immediately that it is not.
While God is proven to be a mathematical reality as a consequence of
becoming conscious of the truth, war and crime are compelled to take
leave of the earth.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is irritating to read your misinterpretations over and over again, all the while ignoring any contrary evidence. Who are you accusing of setting themselves up as an authority when he/she has no actual knowledge, and resisting actual knowledge?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are purposely posting irritating garbage as a way to imitate what you think I have done, you're doing a good job of it.

[thanks] peacegirl!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what was his point Lone Ranger, or are you just trying to belittle me like you always do? If it irritates him this much, then he should leave. But he won't.

You really don't see what he's doing? You're that dense? That's difficult to believe, even coming from you.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am an authority on my father's work because I have studied it carefully for many years.

Yet you Corrupted it with your Corruptions! And now you hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre ($41.00 a pop!).

You have not. Who are you accusing of setting themselves up as an authority when he/she has no actual knowledge, and resisting actual knowledge? My father knew what he was talking about. You are exactly the kind of person he said should not read this book.

And yet, here I am, the True Steward of the Authentic Text. Truly, God works in mysterious ways, peacegirl! Only Nixon could go to China.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You really don't see what he's doing? You're that dense? That's difficult to believe, even coming from you.

Believe it Lone, I'm dense, so help me out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yet you Corrupted it with your Corruptions! And now you hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre ($41.00 a pop!).

And yet, here I am, the True Steward of the Authentic Text. Truly, God works in mysterious ways, peacegirl! Only Nixon could go to China.

Sad but I have to ignore you. You give me no option. I know deep down you realize that.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sad but I have to ignore you.

peacegirl, you have that right of way. That is your business, not mine. Understand simply that your claiming to ignore me will not alter the undeniable, mathematical, scientific reality of my True Stewardship of the Authentic Text.

I of course do not believe that you will actually ignore me. You have lied about this many, many times, peacegirl, And I think you are lying again now.

However, if you are to ignore me, I will simply carry on addressing other readers of this thread as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

You give me no option. I know deep down you realize that.

Dear readers, peacegirl is obviously confused and dishonest. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I will demonstrate this using the Authentic Text:



As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I could try to deconfuse peacegirl, but she is ignoring me, I guess.

[peacegirl]

This thread has been abused and distorted by people who have no idea what they're talking about. What I personally have seen is a reluctance of lurkers to feel comfortable being part of the conversation. They won't do it. Even though this forum claims to be an open give and take, it is a ruse to use people to laugh at. It's so sick. This is not free thought as it's defined. I have regrets to have wasted so much time here that I will never get back.
P.S. Chuck is now on ignore. It's like a breath of fresh air. I may occasionally check to see the latest lies he's propogating, but other than that he is no longer part of my online life.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread has been abused and distorted by people who have no idea what they're talking about. What I personally have seen is a reluctance for anyone who is not a participant to become part of the conversation. They won't do it. Even though this forum claims to be an open conversation, it is a ruse to use people to laugh at. It's so sick. This is not free thought as it's defined.

The Authentic Text has been abused and distorted by peacegirl, who has no idea what she's talking about. What I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, personally have seen is her reluctance to permit anyone who rejects her $41.00 Corrupted Text to become part of the conversation. She won't do it. Even though she claims to want to see these claims investigated, it is a ruse to hawk her Corrupted Text for lucre. It's so sick. Her Corrupted Text is not the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

[ChuckF]

I am delighted that peacegirl claims to have placed me on ignore - perhaps a happy consequence of this will be that she will cease constantly to blame me for the undeniable scientific, mathematical reality that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. Day and night she blames me, for no reason other than that I love the Authentic Text.

From there, I hope she will find her way to picking up that slide rule, that corollary, that magic elixir THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the baser metals of her blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age.

We shall see, friends. We shall see.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Renounce your blameful Corruptions and cleave to the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Sadly, peacegirl can no more renounce her blameful Corruptions than 3 can renounce being to six as 4 is to 8.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, you seem frustrated and angry. Maybe it is time for a thought exercise in two parts.

This is part one. Think about the following questions, and keep the answers in mind for part two. Do you find it frustrating to try to talk with someone who just posts the same old nonsense over and over again? Is it irritating when that person simply reiterates the same intentionally misguided misinterpretation over and over again, all the while ignoring any contrary evidence? Is it annoying when that person blithely asserts themselves as an authority, even where s/he has no actual knowledge, and indeed resists actual knowledge? Is it grating to see that person simply make things up and assert them as truth without any actual evidence?

This is part two. Keeping in mind your answers from part one, do you have any new insights into my Revolution in Thought thread?

I wonder if that post made an audible whooshing sound as it sailed over peacegirl's head.

--------

Oh, and peacegirl, I think there's a way to maintain your lollygagging layabout lifestyle without burdening your children. All you need do is get back together with your ex. You already know one another's foibles, and let's face it - making a living by financially exploiting poor people will be not only fashionable but also more lucrative than ever here in Donald Trump's America, the America you helped create.

That would have the collateral benefit of getting Flo back in the running for Jerome's germinal substance.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Sadly, peacegirl can no more renounce her blameful Corruptions than 3 can renounce being to six as 4 is to 8.

I fear you may be right, Citizen Doctor. Her conscience must operating at what, a 2? Sad.

[Florence Jellem]

It is so sad that peacegirl is attempting to censor ChuckF, the true steward of the authentic text. But fear not, boys – the millions of lurkers who have been following this thread on tenterhooks will not be deceived! They can see peacegirl’s sad game for what it is.

Hello, lurkers!

Just so you lurkers know, peacegirl murdered my precious Manchester terrier, Adolf, and now she has stolen from me Jerome, the genital-love of my life.

Murderess! Bully! Genital love thief!



#ripAdolf

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe it Lone, I'm dense, so help me out.

You're that dense? Really? That's difficult to believe.



Okay, just to humor you, I'll provide some help. Go back and read the following, where Chuck pretty-much spells out exactly what he's doing and the point that he's making. No one else has any trouble whatsoever seeing and understanding Chuck's point, but it has gone right over your head -- or so you claim, anyway.

If, after re-reading Chuck's post, you still can't understand the point that he's making, then we'll talk some more.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, you seem frustrated and angry. Maybe it is time for a thought exercise in two parts.

This is part one. Think about the following questions, and keep the answers in mind for part two. Do you find it frustrating to try to talk with someone who just posts the same old nonsense over and over again? Is it irritating when that person simply reiterates the same intentionally misguided misinterpretation over and over again, all the while ignoring any contrary evidence? Is it annoying when that person blithely asserts themselves as an authority, even where s/he has no actual knowledge, and indeed resists actual knowledge? Is it grating to see that person simply make things up and assert them as truth without any actual evidence?

This is part two. Keeping in mind your answers from part one, do you have any new insights into my Revolution in Thought thread?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're that dense? Really? That's difficult to believe.



Okay, just to humor you, I'll provide some help. Go back and read the following, where Chuck pretty-much spells out exactly what he's doing and the point that he's making. No one else has any trouble whatsoever seeing and understanding Chuck's point, but it has gone right over your head -- or so you claim, anyway.

If, after re-reading Chuck's post, you still can't understand the point that he's making, then we'll talk some more.

Enlighten me.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Enlighten me.

Tall order, there!

I think if it were going to happen, the light would already be at your brain, peacegirl.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Enlighten me.

Very well, then.


You constantly complain about how frustrating and irritating it is to deal with Chuck, but -- and here's the really important part, so pay attention now -- he is imitating you. Or more to the point, he's imitating your posting style. He has even explicitly stated this on several occasions.


You post the same nonsense over and over and over again. You reiterate the same intentionally misguided misinterpretations over and over again, while ignoring any contrary evidence. You blithely assert that you are an authority, yet demonstrate no knowledge or understanding of the relevant subject matter whatsoever -- and indeed, go to great lengths to avoid learning anything about the relevant subject matter. You simply make stuff up when it suits you and insist that it's the truth, yet provide not a single shred of evidence to back that assertion. Note, for the record, that you have -- on more than one occasion -- admitted that you lie when it suits your purposes, and that you feel no shame about it.


Chuck is merely mimicking your posting style, in order to try to give you a lesson. Here, I'll spell it out for you: If you find it irritating and frustrating to deal with his feigned ignorance, repetitiveness, obtuseness, intransigence, and dishonesty -- then imagine how we feel when dealing with your real ignorance, repetitiveness, obtuseness, intransigence, and dishonesty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Very well, then.


You constantly complain about how frustrating and irritating it is to deal with Chuck, but -- and here's the really important part, so pay attention now -- he is imitating you. Or more to the point, he's imitating your posting style. He has even explicitly stated this on several occasions.


You post the same nonsense over and over and over again. You reiterate the same intentionally misguided misinterpretations over and over again, while ignoring any contrary evidence. You blithely assert that you are an authority, yet demonstrate no knowledge or understanding of the relevant subject matter whatsoever -- and indeed, go to great lengths to avoid learning anything about the relevant subject matter. You simply make stuff up when it suits you and insist that it's the truth, yet provide not a single shred of evidence to back that assertion. Note, for the record, that you have -- on more than one occasion -- admitted that you lie when it suits your purposes, and that you feel no shame about it.


Chuck is merely mimicking your posting style, in order to try to give you a lesson. Here, I'll spell it out for you: If you find it irritating and frustrating to deal with his feigned ignorance, repetitiveness, obtuseness, intransigence, and dishonesty -- then imagine how we feel when dealing with your real ignorance, repetitiveness, obtuseness, intransigence, and dishonesty.

I'm sorry Lone Ranger, but I already figured that one out. And it goes much deeper than that. Chuck has made a poster child out of me as an example of how a person will be treated if they dare question the status quo. He has targeted me as someone whom he believes has nothing of value to contribute. He has made a large assumption (a no no in logic) that I am wrong (a corrupter of my father's work, which is crazy) and not worth listening to. He knows what he's doing. He is making a mockery out of my father's book. Chuck is a very disrespectful person. He has made it impossible for me to carry on a conversation with anyone. That's why he's on ignore now. It gives me relief to know I don't have to listen to him repeating the same lies and fabrications and turning this very important work into lulz, just so he can be entertained. P.S. I don't know when I said I would lie and find nothing wrong with it. I am sure what I meant is when people are being questioned about some wrongdoing, they may lie in order to protect themselves. I have never lied for the purpose of deceiving anyone. You just don't like me because of my father's claim regarding the eyes. You think I'm a flat earther. I'm sorry that as much as your explanations regarding the eyes appear incontrovertible, this does not prove Lessans' observations were inaccurate.

lie1
[lahy]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

[ChuckF]

Oh, peacegirl. You are much, much more morally vile than a flat earther. Being a flat earther is kind of like believing your idiot father's nonsense babble. Who cares? That doesn't hurt anybody.

Your analysis is close, but misses a key point: I do not give a fuck about your idiot father's nonsense babble. Why would I care what goofy dog eye nonsense you believe? That is only a convenient body of source material to use against you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has made a large assumption (a no no in logic) that I am wrong (a corrupter of my father's work, which is crazy) and not worth listening to.

A justified conclusion, not an assumption. You are wrong and not worth listening to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is making a mockery out of my father's book.

How dare he usurp a role you've been monopolizing for years!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Chuck is a very disrespectful person.

Hilarious that you would say this after claiming to understand that he has only been imitating you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has made it impossible for me to carry on a conversation with anyone.

The only constant factor in your ongoing inability to converse for the past decade has been you, Peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never lied for the purpose of deceiving anyone.

So what was your purpose in constantly lying throughout your threads?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't like me because of my father's claim regarding the eyes.

I can't speak for TLR, but I dislike you for a different reason - namely, your constant lies and dishonest evasion.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can't speak for TLR, but I dislike you for a different reason - namely, your constant lies and dishonest evasion.

It's the constant lying, the evasiveness, and the truly staggering hypocrisy on her part that I find so repulsive.

I wouldn't give a flying rat's backside about her incredible ignorance if only she were even the least bit honest about it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it goes much deeper than that. Chuck has made a poster child out of me as an example of how a person will be treated if they dare question the status quo. He has targeted me as someone whom he believes has nothing of value to contribute. He has made a large assumption (a no no in logic) that I am wrong (a corrupter of my father's work, which is crazy) and not worth listening to. He knows what he's doing. He is making a mockery out of my father's book. Chuck is a very disrespectful person. He has made it impossible for me to carry on a conversation with anyone. That's why he's on ignore now. It gives me relief to know I don't have to listen to him repeating the same lies and fabrications and turning this very important work into lulz, just so he can be entertained.

Peacegirl is playing the martyr card again.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Seems like the perfect thread title for this:


Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Power