A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hiya, peacegirl! I'm sorry about your pathetic excuse for an existence, but I'm glad you're back because I enjoy the everloving hell out of reminding you that Trump trolled the shit out of you idiot anti-vaxxers.

Have you decided what you're going to do when Big Daddy decides it's time for you to stop being a parasite?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really sad, but I want to let you know that your analysis of the two-sided equation is completely off.

peacegirl, there's a single-sentence summary of the "two-sided equation" (). I can't say whether the summary originated with the author because it appears in your fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt. Any claim you might make about the origin of the summary is useless because you're an admitted liar, and anything you say can reasonably be construed as evidence that the opposite is true.

For present purposes, I'll remind you that I quoted the single-sentence summary verbatim from your Corrupted Text during a discussion we had several year back, and you disagreed with it. Remember that, dummy? P. funny, I tell you what.

Remember the many, many times participants in this thread asked you to summarize the "two-sided equation" () in your own words, and how you refused every single time? You refused because you don't understand it, not even a little.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not staying

You'll leave for good when I goddamn jolly well tell you to leave for good, and not a moment before.

show spoiler

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kyuss Apollo

Can we hold you to this as a threat or a promise?

I certainly hope that Peacegirl continues to post, I find her post's to be quite amusing, especially when she tries to support Lessans ideas.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You'll leave for good when I goddamn jolly well tell you to leave for good, and not a moment before.

show spoiler

That certainly takes balls.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another false assumption on your part. I was looking through the posts to get an idea of how this thread turned into a cesspool. It didn't take long. I was also (and still am) interested in my responses and how I could have done better. It's always good to go back, if possible, and review what took place, so improvement can be made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really sad, but I want to let you know that your analysis of the two-sided equation is completely off.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl, there's a single-sentence summary of the "two-sided equation" ().

That's because you were thinking about the next reactionary response to what you believed could not be correct. It's easy to overlook a very clear explanation if you don't give it your full attention.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I can't say whether the summary originated with the author because it appears in your fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt. Any claim you might make about the origin of the summary is useless because you're an admitted liar, and anything you say can reasonably be construed as evidence that the opposite is true.

They were his words.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

For present purposes, I'll remind you that I quoted the single-sentence summary verbatim from your Corrupted Text during a discussion we had several year back, and you disagreed with it. Remember that, dummy? P. funny, I tell you what.

There was nothing wrong with the sentence. You interpreted it incorrectly, is all. And from there it was an easy step for you to turn the whole book into lulz. Here is when he first used this sentence, but you rushed to judgment by concluding the two-sided equation was circular. It's so easy to judge falsely what you don't understand.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because
of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man
responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was
never found if it lies hidden beyond this point?

If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if
he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog
in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing
what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law
and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of
the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction,
or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.
This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the
mathematic corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the
same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial; how
to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our
penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize,
not to blame and punish those acts of crime when we know that man
was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed
my loved one how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible,
not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge?
I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent man from
hurting his fellow man if this is his desire. Though this may be an
undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone
responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.?
Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or
pretend they didn’t happen? Besides, what will prevent someone from
blaming and punishing despite the fact that will is not free — if it
gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is
certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no
blame.”

This has always been the greatest stumbling block which kept free
will on the throne until the present time. It is a natural reaction to
blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does
not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is because it has the
power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was
previously necessary, as part of our development. At this juncture, I
shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of
important facts that must be understood before continuing.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Remember the many, many times participants in this thread asked you to summarize the "two-sided equation" () in your own words, and how you refused every single time? You refused because you don't understand it, not even a little.

Funny how you want my own words when the whole time you're telling me my own words make the book corrupt.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not staying

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You'll leave for good when I goddamn jolly well tell you to leave for good, and not a moment before.

show spoiler

You have no power over me.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was nothing wrong with the sentence.

And yet you disagreed with it, rather vehemently if memory serves.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no power over me.

And yet . . .

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was looking through the posts to get an idea of how this thread turned into a cesspool. It didn't take long. I was also (and still am) interested in my responses and how I could have done better. It's always good to go back, if possible, and review what took place, so improvement can be made.

peacegirl, let me help you again:

What took place: You Corrupted the Authentic Text to hawk your Corrupted Text online for lucre at $41.00 a pop. I rescued the Authentic Text from the obscurity to which you attempted to consign it. You reject the Authentic Text out of resentment for Seymour Lessans. Your rejection of the Authentic Text was a hurt to the Authentic Text, but as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for it, because I allow for the source.

How you could have done better: Give up your posthumous blame of and resentment for the Author and the words he wrote and published in his lifetime. Stop pasting huge swathes of your worthless Corrupted Text. Your Corrupted Text is of no interest, because it is Corrupt. Reject your Corrupted Text. Join me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Improvements that can be made: Be able to summarize the Boohog Corollary in your own words. Understand the application of the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem and the Grass on the Field Axiom. In short, join the masses eager to learn from me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, let me help you again:

What took place: You Corrupted the Authentic Text to hawk your Corrupted Text online for lucre at $41.00 a pop. I rescued the Authentic Text from the obscurity to which you attempted to consign it. You reject the Authentic Text out of resentment for Seymour Lessans. Your rejection of the Authentic Text was a hurt to the Authentic Text, but as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for it, because I allow for the source.

How you could have done better: Give up your posthumous blame of and resentment for the Author and the words he wrote and published in his lifetime. Stop pasting huge swathes of your worthless Corrupted Text. Your Corrupted Text is of no interest, because it is Corrupt. Reject your Corrupted Text. Join me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Improvements that can be made: Be able to summarize the Boohog Corollary in your own words. Understand the application of the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem and the Grass on the Field Axiom. In short, join the masses eager to learn from me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

You have a psychological problem chuck. I was answering a post that Maturin thought discredited this discovery. It did no such thing. I am not interested in what you have to say. You can't be quiet for a microsecond, can you? Now you have a bigger problem because if Lessans is proved to be right, you will have a lot of explaining to do. How will you save face? Your slimy behavior will find a way.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a psychological problem chuck.

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was answering a post that Maturin thought discredited this discovery. It did no such thing. I am not interested in what you have to say. You can't be quiet for a microsecond, can you? Now you have a bigger problem because if Lessans is proved to be right, you will have a lot of explaining to do. How will you save face? Your slimy behavior will find a way.

When the Golden Age is upon us, peacegirl, this world shall be cleft atwain: on the one side, I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text alongside those of us whose baser metals are transmuted into the pure gold of the Golden Age, who reject the Corrupted Text and interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, without blame from you. On the other side, peacegirl, Corruptrix, blamefully hawking her worthless Corrupted Text at the credulous in pursuit of lucre.

But even still it is not too late for you, peacegirl. Renounce your blameful Corruptions and cleave to the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. Be ye not afraid, peacegirl; love the Authentic Text as I, its True Steward, have come to do, peacegirl, and thereby transmute the baser metals of your blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age. Take up that slide rule, that corollary; imbibe that magic elixir. I know that at your core, you are compelled of your own free will to do so.

[peacegirl]

I can't even address a post because of Chuck's interference. Oh well. I tried.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even address a post because of Chuck's interference. Oh well. I tried.

I know, peacegirl - you can't address a post, because your Corrupted Text cannot be defended. peacegirl, it is sad to see you dismiss the Authentic Text - the very words of the Author as published in his lifetime - as "interference." I suppose the Authentic Text does interfere with your hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre. This cannot be helped, peacegirl.

For I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I reject your Corrupted Text. I interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. I do so without blame from you. And I invite the dear readers of this thread, who do not seek peacegirl's blame, to join me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I know, peacegirl - you can't address a post, because your Corrupted Text cannot be defended. peacegirl, it is sad to see you dismiss the Authentic Text - the very words of the Author as published in his lifetime - as "interference." I suppose the Authentic Text does interfere with your hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre. This cannot be helped, peacegirl.

For I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I reject your Corrupted Text. I interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. I do so without blame from you. And I invite the dear readers of this thread, who do not seek peacegirl's blame, to join me.

You're such a fraud! You slap me in the face by making up lies and fabrications, and then you expect me to turn the other cheek. You deserve my blame and my wrath.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're such a fraud! You slap me in the face by making up lies and fabrications, and then you expect me to turn the other cheek. I can't stand you. You deserve my disgust and my wrath.

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

'tis not just I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, who says so, but the Authentic Text, of course:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

'tis not just I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, who says so, but the Authentic Text, of course:

Yes, when the transition occurs. You cannot take that expression and try to apply it to a free will environment. It doesn't work that way.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, when the transition occurs. You cannot take that expression and try to apply it to a free will environment. It doesn't work that way.

peacegirl, you can believe whatever Corrupt ideas you need to believe in order to justify the baser metals of your blameful nature. That is your business, not mine. You have that right of way.

As for me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I reject your Corrupted Text. I interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. I do so without blame from you.

[Florence Jellem]

Well, look who’s back. Peacegirl.

Flo understands that you and Jerome are an “item” now.

Also here, and here.



What, then, is Flo?

Chopped liver? Mincemeat pie? The proof in the pudding that you can lead a horse to but can’t make him eat?

Is Flo the cart before the horse?

What do you two see in each other? Is it that he believes the earth is flat and you believe light is at the eye before it gets there?

Shared crackpottery is not a sound basis for a long-term relationship, dear.

I’ve been pitching woo at Jerome for weeks but he simply ignores me. Now I know why! The bitter truth is out!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

I will blame you. You have given me the justification. I will not turn the other cheek.

Christ also received
incursions of thought from this same principle which compelled him
to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross,
“They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the
moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when
he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they
were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the other
cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.

But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will get deserving blame from me. You're a total fool.

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

[Florence Jellem]

I suppose Jerome was compelled of his own free will to fall in love with peacegirl’s withered old genitals, as opposed to Flo’s withered old genitals. Nobody dast blame this man (Thou Shalt Not Blame slide rule).

Having lost in the age-old game of genital love, Flo will console herself by curling up with a nice bottle of whiskey, and after I have drained it, I will … but never you mind about that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

You are a fool!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, when the transition occurs. You cannot take that expression and try to apply it to a free will environment. It doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by chuck

peacegirl, you can believe whatever Corrupt ideas you need to believe in order to justify the baser metals of your blameful nature. That is your business, not mine. You have that right of way.

No chuck. You don't get to twist his words to suit you. We all have a blameful nature if the conditions are such that we feel we have been hurt. We would be justified in our retaliation. It's called an eye for an eye and it's a natural reaction. Who is arguing with this? The other option is turning the other cheek. Most people are not able to do that. That is not what this book is promoting.

The difference between this principle and the principle
Christ preached — “Turn the other cheek,” is that the former prevents
the first cheek from ever being struck whereas Gandhi, in his bid for
freedom and his belief in nonviolence, was forced to turn the other
cheek although the first cheek was struck over and over again which
took an untold number of lives. Secondly, man must be willing to die
in order for turning the other cheek to be effective, consequently
innumerable abuses cannot be prevented which starts a chain reaction
of retaliation. Besides, how is it possible not to strike back when your
very being moves in this direction for satisfaction? Gandhi said, “Kill
us all or give us our freedom; we will not resist anything you do to us,”
compelling those in power, after many were already slain, to find more
satisfaction in leaving them alone.

Many minorities, such as the
Blacks, cannot apply this psychology because the situation does not
call for such a sacrifice. How are these people to turn the other cheek
when they are underpaid, overtaxed, and judged by Whites as one of
the inferior races? It has been their effort to correct these abuses —
not by turning the other cheek — that has brought these people this
far. By turning the other cheek (which also proves in a mathematical
manner that man’s will is not free), it absolutely prevents the second
cheek from being struck because it is impossible, as the people of India
demonstrated, to get satisfaction from continuing to hurt those who
refuse to fight back, but as history has shown many were killed just by
being struck on the first cheek. My imparting the knowledge that no
one will again blame you in any way, judge your actions or tell you
what to do will mathematically prevent your first cheek from being
struck which is necessary in a world of atomic energy when an entire
nation can be wiped out from being struck on the first cheek. Let us,
once again, observe what the perception of undeniable relations tells
us.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a fool!

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

Look at Flo. I've already gotten over Jerome falling in love with your withered old genitals, and don't blame him at all, the bastard!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No chuck. You don't get to twist his words to suit you. We all have a blameful nature if the conditions are such that we feel we have been hurt and are therefore justified in our blame. It's called an eye for an eye. It is a natural reaction. Who is arguing with this? The other option is turning the other cheek. Most people are not able to do that. That is not what this book is promoting.

- large selection of worthless Corrupted Text deleted because it is Corrupt and worthless -

I'm not telling anyone what to do, peacegirl. I can only give my opinion based on what I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, have learned from my study of the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. If you don't agree with the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, then you are entitled, as a Corruptrix, to do what you feel is best.

[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?

[Florence Jellem]

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?

<Flo breaks character> </breaks character>

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I'm not telling anyone what to do, peacegirl. I can only give my opinion based on what I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, have learned from my study of the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. If you don't agree with the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, then you are entitled, as a Corruptrix, to do what you feel is best.

You are the corrupter. You have taken excerpts out of context and turned it into something that is unrecognizable.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the corrupter. You have taken excerpts out of context and turned it into something that is unrecognizable.

No, u. You are the Corruptrix! You corrupted my genital love interest Jerome.