A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This is Lessans' idea of a proof. He would describe an experiment, then tell you what he thinks the result will be, and why it proves he is correct.

Of course, maybe it's better in the Authentic Text.

Yes, this is all that Lessans has ever provided, imaginary experiments with his imaginary results. The problem is that many times an experiment is done and the results do not match what is expected, assuming that the scientists have an expected result in mind, usually they do not. Since Lessans never preformed an experiment, all his results can only be regarded as wild speculation, with no basis in fact. The problem with this is that Lessans wild speculation had not basis in reality, they were only his flights of fantasy, and nothing else. Most of the time his ideas of the results were completely wrong, because the tests had already been done, and the real results were well known, but Lessans was too ignorant and arrogant to learn what was already known.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He gave a very sound explanation. He explained why dogs can't recognize photographs, and why humans can. This can be tested, probably more easily than you think.

It has been tested, Lessans was wrong, you just don't like the results.

[Stephen Maturin]

It seems the extent of peacegirl's literary crimes is far worse than originally suspected. She's basically taken Ulysses and turned it into a Rachael Ray cookbook (if, you know, Rachael Ray were a vacuous anti-vax moron).

Cursed for all time be the name of peacegirl, who annihilated the genius of the Authentic Text for the basest of motives: money.

Please join me in thanking the 100% non-religious God for ChuckF, who rescued the Authentic Text from obscurity and is sharing it with the world, free of charge. That, my friends, is true stewardship.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, wrt more pressing matters; namely, the cover design for your father’s book, “Juicy Cunt.”

I took note of your strongly adverse reaction to the concept of an erotically suggestive pepperoni pizza for the cover art. I suspect you reacted this way because you, yourself, do not eat meat. That’s fair enough.

Did you see my alternative design involving a grapefruit? Please advise.

I think that more specifically Peacegirl does not eat Pork products and pepperoni is made primarily from the meat of a Pig. Of course you could claim that they do not contain any meat from a Pig. I knew a Muslim (they don't eat Pigs either) and he was telling me that there were pepperonis that were not made from Pork, but other meat that was acceptable to Muslims and Jews.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

And, if you have a digital camera with a connecting cable, you can still use that to photograph the book. It doesn't matter that you've already photographed it with your iPhone: your iPhone isn't going to get all jealous and miserable just because you used another camera to photograph the same thing.

Are you sure, if you don't have an iPhone you have no idea how touchy they can be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

That would be an example of advance blaming.

And an iPhone would certainly blame you for being unfaithful, they can't join Lessans Brave New World Order Golden Age, they can't sign the contract to be part of it, they don't have any hands.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not stupid David. You are an ignorant #*$*hole. You're just trying to reduce the book to nothing more than dirt because you have a vendetta against him. You don't have a clue what the point of that chapter was about.

Sure we do, the point of the book, and the point of Lessans was funny sex, it was one long one trick pony, and that trick was a joke about sex.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Good stuff, Mr. Lessans. You must be rolling in your grave at what your daughter did to your book.

Good ole Pinwheel Lessans.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, that's exactly it. To say, "my penis is like a phallic symbol," is literally to say, "my penis is a symbol of my penis," which is further to say it transcends the individual penis and becomes Mankind's Penis. All this goes over peacegirl's head, though.

And by the way, I don't think any of this is unintentionally funny on his part. He knows exactly what he's doing and how he's playing it for laughs. He tips it off at the end of that long and zany passage that ends with Rin Tin Tin, when he asks his buddies, "Why are you laughing? This is serious business!"



Good stuff, Mr. Lessans. You must be rolling in your grave at what your daughter did to your book.

You have no idea how accurate this is. What manifests in the Corrupted Text as subvocalizations of a simple insecurity over a lack of formal academic credentials reads in the Authentic Text as strident and occasionally stinging satire of the academy and its preoccupation with those same credentials. In the Corrupted Text, it's a self-congratulatory flavor of simple whining ('I then inquired, “With all your formal education, your honors, your degrees and diplomas, what discoveries have you made to solve the problems plaguing mankind?” There was no answer and he hung up.')

But in the Authentic Text, a steady and sharp needling of the academy propels the narrative forward like a coxswain:



"I was pronouncing it incorrectly." That is really, really funny - devastatingly so.

I think no critic with a basic awareness of American literature of the era could miss some playful hints at intertextuality tying Lessans to his contemporaries. davidm, you have (astutely!) pointed to a resonance with Miller and Kerouac, and the historical influence of Joyce and Rimbaud. For myself, I find a kinship with Lessans' fellow Marylander, John Barth. The man reared outside of the academy who finds himself to be the Messiah, in a universe of the university-educated, compelled to bring wisdom and a computer network to solemnize a new socio-religious compact. Is this Lessans' Larry, or Barth's Grand Tutor, Giles Goatboy? Harry and Charlie and Alice - or Jacob Horner, and Joe and Rennie Morgan of The End of the Road?

It is unfortunate that the Authentic Text, forgotten in a closet, has not been read and analyzed as it should be.

[davidm]

omfg this is hilarious.

And this time he even got the math right!

peacegirl, please restore the original text and dump your schismatic blasphemous anti-emendations!

Let me appeal to your greed: if you restore Lessans's authentic words, you will sell copies. I'll buy a copy myself!

[Stephen Maturin]

Chuck, the following passage appears on page 459 of the 2011 edition of the Corrupted Text:

Gift giving has always been a special problem in marital relationships (which children eventually imitate) because the woman has always equated a gift with love. The quality, price, and effort that went into buying the gift were standards the woman used to measure a man’s love. If he failed the test, it was proof to her that he was only giving out of a sense of duty. In this situation, the woman’s expectations have been met with disappointment which she then uses to justify her criticism because she believes he struck the first blow.

It appears the Messiah was trying to explain mathematically that women are money-grubbing whores. However, peacegirl has told us that she is solely responsible for the above-quoted passage.

Of course, peacegirl also told us that she was responsible for statements regarding the demise of environmental, non-glandular homosexuals in the New World. Through your efforts as the True Steward, it was shown that peacegirl was lying about being the author of the comments regarding homosexuality. It seems she wanted credit for the Messiah's work.

Based on peacegirl's previously demonstrated dishonesty, I suspect she is lying about being the author of the money-grubbing whores passage as well, and is once again trying to pilfer credit for the Messiah's insights.

Does something akin to the above-quoted passage appear in the Authentic Text? Is peacegirl, the corrupter, lying to us yet again?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He just made parts humorous to make it palatable.

And you took those parts out making it unpalatable. Was that your purpose all along?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I said has the same meaning as his. I believe I took out "mathematically impossible" in my last version.

So, you want us to believe that "desire one bed for the two of them" and "desire to own only one bed for the two of them" mean the same thing. Further, do you really expect us to believe that "[s]leeping together, except as part of the sexual act, is about to take leave" and "[s]leeping together except as part of the sexual act will no longer be an unspoken rule of marriage" mean the same thing? That boat won't float.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Is peacegirl, the corrupter, lying to us yet again?

I take it that this is meant to be understood as a rhetorical question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I take it that this is meant to be understood as a rhetorical question.

Do you really expect an answer to this rhetorical question?

[Angakuk]

To what rhetorical question are you refering? I certainly asked no questions, rhetorical or otherwise, in my previous post.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is what the Corrupted Text originally said:

Does this mean we must count our strokes till we climax?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

To what rhetorical question are you refering? I certainly asked no questions, rhetorical or otherwise, in my previous post.

Yes.

[thedoc]

BTW, is your sermon ready for tomorrow?

[Angakuk]

Yes. By 'yes' I mean that it is as ready any of my sermons are before they get preached. Which is to say, I have a title for it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes.

Yes?

[thedoc]

FYI, it appears that given Peacegirls lack of answers, every question posed to her ends up being a rhetorical question.

[thedoc]

I'm pretending to be Peacegirl because I'm too tired to think of good responses.

[Angakuk]

In that case, you must spend a lot of time pretending to be her. Are there any costumes involved?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In that case, you must spend a lot of time pretending to be her. Are there any costumes involved?

No costumes at all.