A revolution in thought

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you trying to make me look foolish?

I am gobsmacked by this.

I hesitated to reply, but really, you need to think about it: even if this book does in fact conceal a life-changing truth (and conceal it very well), it's not other people making you look foolish.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, have you not listened when I told everyone not to open the book at random? In the foreword and introduction it was mentioned that it would look like a fairy tale. You did the exact thing the author urged over and over not to do. Are you trying to make me look foolish? Why are you doing this?

I didn't open the book at random. I told you I have read a significant portion of it, then I skimmed for testable claims, since it is posited as a scientific work.

I am doing this to demonstrate WHY people have a problem with the book .

Why are you unable to post a defense, explanation or reasoned argument?

Since you already posted this, I guess I have to defend it. Anyone can tell you that for the most part female/male sexual attraction is what brings two people together. If one person knew that the other had no sex organs, most people would not be happy with this set up. There may be exceptions. I know a girl who was paralyzed from the neck down and her boyfriend married her anyway. But for the most part, men and women marry to have a family and sex is part of that.

If there are exceptions, that means it is possible. Therefore the word impossible should not have been used.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No, she's saying no one read it and liked it, which for her purposes amounts to not reading it at all.

Kael, you're wrong. No one read any of it, period. Have you ever been asked by a philosohy teacher to critique a philosopher's ideas without having read his or her work? I doubt it very much.

[Crumb]

No one read any of it, period.

So LadyShea, Adam and I are lying?

[LadyShea]

It is presented as a scientific work, not a philosophical one, chock full of the aforementioned use of "mathematical" as an adjective and claims related to biological processes. Scientific and mathematical claims can be examined.

I have never had anyone (and we have several University professors right here at ) tell me that excerpts, passages, or specific claims cannot be discussed unless the entire body of work had been read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have shown you a lot of respect that I feel you have not earned. You think I am working so hard to get through to you out of disrespect? That would be a spectacular waste of my time and talents.

Then you have spectacularly wasted your time and talents trying to promote this concept.

Why do you think that is?

Most book promoters at least offer a synopsis, you can't even do that.

Deflection and blaming the listener

Why have you avoided offering a definition, summary or synopsis yet you expect me to?

I told you. There is a minimum of reading that has to be done. A synopsis will not be good enough. Thirteen pages is not a lot to read and it could lead to real interest. I'm saddened that people are so stubborn (I'm sorry but that's how I feel) that they are going to lose out on an important discovery.

[LadyShea]

I read the 13 pages. I have asked you to tell me your thoughts, in your own words before, I present my own feedback.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is presented as a scientific work, not a philosophical one, chock full of the aforementioned use of "mathematical" as an adjective and claims related to biology.

It is mathematical; it has nothing to do with numbers per se, but it is still mathematical. He even qualified it by saying that mathematical only means undeniable. This knowledge is absolutely undeniable meaning that it cannot be denied, if it is understood. It's ironic because everyone here has the intellectual capacity to understand this major work, but I can tell that no one is going to read it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Scientific and mathematical claims are testable. I have never had anyone (and we have several University professors right here at ) tell me that excerpts or specific claims cannot be discussed unless the entire body of work had been read.

It all depends on the type of work. Because this book is based on the first two chapters (in fact, the first two chapter are fundamental), reading the book at random would defeat the whole purpose of what the book is conveying. Every time an excerpt is taken out of context, it unfairly reflects on the author.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read the 13 pages. I have asked you to tell me your thoughts, in your own words before, I present my own feedback.

No, I need to understand what you got out of it. I will know immediately if you grasped what was being said. If you haven't, I will try to explain where there was misunderstanding. Why is this so distasteful to you?

[LadyShea]

You keep having the same conversations over and over, on different forums, through the years. You are the common factor in all of them. The people you are talking to are not the ones with the problem, peacegirl.

Best of luck to you.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish I had the power to ban you!

Watch out, Adam, she might be obsessed.

I'm interested in how this idea can prevent crime, war, hatred and at the same time the promoter(s) hold rather hateful ideas about people with mental illness. Such as the fact that people who experience mental illness must be constantly supervised or watched and are destined to ruin OTHER people's lives.

Watch out, it's the woo-woo train!

Don't worry, I define woo-woo in a way that is mathematically different from the way it has been used on this thread to date.

[LadyShea]

I banz you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep having the same conversations over and over, on different forums, through the years. You are the common factor in all of them. The people you are talking to are not the ones with the problem, peacegirl.

Best of luck to you.

You are wrong. Best of luck to you too.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong.

Unsupported assertion

[BrotherMan]

Well, so much for this blameless world.

[LadyShea]

Fucking persecution complexes, how do they work?

[JoeP]

One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by JoeP

One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?

Mk 4:10-12 And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of Big Daddy, but for those outside everything happens in parables, so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."

--J.D.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I need to understand what you got out of it. I will know immediately if you grasped what was being said. If you haven't, I will try to explain where there was misunderstanding. Why is this so distasteful to you?

I'm still waiting on you to explain my misunderstandings...or was declaring me wrong and then wishing you could ban me supposed to be some sort of explanation?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, have you not listened when I told everyone not to open the book at random? In the foreword and introduction it was mentioned that it would look like a fairy tale.

There is one very probably, and the more I myself read the more likely it seems, explanation for this.

Think about it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unsupported assertion

Please, this is not an unsupported assertion. Let it be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by JoeP

One thing has been bothering me: if everyone has to understand this discovery / think in this new way for it to work, but it's so bloody difficult to understand, what chance does it have?

It's won't be that difficult once this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm still waiting on you to explain my misunderstandings...or was declaring me wrong and then wishing you could ban me supposed to be some sort of explanation?

Adam, I hardly talked to you. You had nothing substantial to say, so I have nothing substantial to say back.

[Doctor X]

Oh what the hell:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's won't be that difficult once this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment.

Why would a "law" have to become a permanent "condition of the environment?"

Rather like eschatology: it is always just going to happen . . . and everyone will agree with us . . . who are not on fire . . . REAL soon.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please, this is not an unsupported assertion. Let it be.

Then support it. Demonstrate my wrongness