Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

As everyone knows, what a Lessans said means nothing. All that matters is what the author meant. Any failure to divine what the author really meant from what the author said is entirely the fault of the reader (even though Thou Shalt Not Blame).

No one is blaming you for your lack of understanding. Believe me, you have no understanding of the principles whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

OK, he put it in but it really wasn't his claim. He said 98% but that doesn't mean literally 98% but a large percentage like maybe 10 percent or 5.

Now what about those photons, are there any at the retina at 12 o'clock?

The comment may have been inaccurate as far as why people are gay, but it was not meant to be derogatory. He even said in the economic chapter that he made a mistake. He left it in on purpose to show that this has no bearing on the discovery itself, although the extension of these principles may need refinement.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is blaming

That's false, peacegirl. You've been flinging blame like a monkey flings its own shit since you first arrived here over 5.5 years ago.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me

But you're a proven liar. Why would anyone believe anything you have to say on any subject?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's false, peacegirl. You've been flinging blame like a monkey flings its own shit since you first arrived here over 5.5 years ago.

But you're a proven liar. Why would anyone believe anything you have to say on any subject?

And you're a sleazy lawyer who knows how to make sonething appear what it's not! Now show me the errors in the article, or are you too chicken?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're a sleazy lawyer who knows how to make sonething appear what it's not!

Thou shalt not blame, peacegirl, thou shalt not blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now show me the errors in the article, or are you too chicken?

peacegirl, you're the one presenting the statements in the opinion piece as true. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you.

Again, what makes you think we should presume the opinion piece true and assume the burden of debunking it? Is that a product of your general entitlement mentality, or is it one of those elderly-people-automatically-believe-they're-right-about-everything deals?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Stephen Maturin;1276251]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're a sleazy lawyer who knows how to make something appear what it's not!

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Thou shalt not blame, peacegirl, thou shalt not blame.

It doesn't work that way Maturin. You don't get to hurt me and then say "Thou shall not blame" because I strike back. You're letting everyone know how ignorant you are regarding this book. This was carefully explained in Chapter Two.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now show me the errors in the article, or are you too chicken?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl, you're the one presenting the statements in the opinion piece as true. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you.

Again, what makes you think we should presume the opinion piece true and assume the burden of debunking it? Is that a product of your general entitlement mentality, or is it one of those elderly-people-automatically-believe-they're-right-about-everything deals?

There is nothing opinionated about this piece. So admit there is corruption in the FDA.

<snip>

According to the WP, officials from both the FDA and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) would regularly meet with pharmaceutical representatives in private to discuss regulatory protocols, co-write scientific papers and collaborate on various ways to help streamline the drug approval process. And the only parties who actually paid to attend such meetings were the drug companies, a fact that one official from the NIH expressed serious concerns about in an email, referring to the whole scheme as a "pay to play process."

Others who have since reviewed the emails agree, noting that, while the FDA did not necessarily benefit financially from these private meetings, many FDA officials went on to work as pharmaceutical consultants. In other words, FDA staff who agreed to grease the palms of the drug industry during these private meetings were later rewarded with high-paying positions in the drug industry. This is just one glaring example of how the line between the regulator (FDA) and the regulated (pharmaceutical companies) has been blurred beyond recognition.

"These e-mails help explain the disastrous decisions the FDA's analgesic division has made over the last 10 years," said Craig Mayton, the Columbus, Ohio, attorney who made the public records request to the University of Washington, to the WP. "Instead of protecting the public health, the FDA has been allowing the drug companies to pay for a seat at a small table where all the rules were written."

cont. at: Total corruption: Drug companies bought their way onto FDA advisory panels - NaturalNews.com

[But]

We could discuss the Washington Post article and avoid the rhetoric of the guy with the calcified brain.

And no, avoiding a site of deranged nutjobs as a source is not a cop-out.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But there are no photons at earth yet - the sun has not been turned on yet! Are you saying that in this scenario we simply cannot see the sun until 8 minutes later, when the first photons reach us from the sun? Despite what the book says?

So now we are looking at:

t=0 and the sun is turned on - photons appear.

t=0 and photons, but not the same ones, are at the lens? Where did they come from?

t=0 and photons are at the retina, acting just like they were redirected by the lens... are these the same ones as the ones at the lens, the ones that appeared at the sun, or different ones again?

I am following the efferent model, which states that since the sun is bright enough and large enough to be seen, photons must be at the retina, because the conditions for sight have been met and the sun is in visual range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

We could discuss the Washington Post article and avoid the rhetoric of the guy with the calcified brain.

And no, avoiding a site of deranged nutjobs as a source is not a cop-out.

The article is legitimate, just like the articles I posted from whale were legitimate. I'm still waiting for a point by point analysis. I better not hold my breath.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So now we are looking at:

t=0 and the sun is turned on - photons appear.

t=0 and photons, but not the same ones, are at the lens? Where did they come from?

t=0 and photons are at the retina, acting just like they were redirected by the lens... are these the same ones as the ones at the lens, the ones that appeared at the sun, or different ones again?

I am following the efferent model, which states that since the sun is bright enough and large enough to be seen, photons must be at the retina, because the conditions for sight have been met and the sun is in visual range.

All light comes from the Sun. Since light is constantly being replaced, the same photons that we would use to see a distant object could not be the same photons that have just arrived at Earth, but that doesn't matter because the light is not bringing the image (or information) to the eyes over long distances. You have to remember that when we're looking at the object in real time, the light that is present (if the object is bright enough and within range) is instantly at the lens and redirected (when we gaze in that direction) otherwise we would be unable to see said object.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The article is legitimate, just like the articles I posted from whale were legitimate. I'm still waiting for a point by point analysis. I better not hold my breath.

Is the article from the same guy legitimate that says you should stare into the Sun 40 minutes a day in case your brain is calcified?

Why don't we discuss the Washington Post article instead, since that's the only source of the NuttyNews article?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All light comes from the Sun. Since light is constantly being replaced, the same photons that we would use to see a distant object could not be the same photons that have just arrived at Earth, but that doesn't matter because the light is not bringing the image (or information) to the eyes over long distances. You have to remember that when we're looking at the object in real time, the light that is present (if the object is bright enough and within range) is instantly at the lens and redirected (when we gaze in that direction) otherwise we would be unable to see said object.

You're not making sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Is the article from the same guy legitimate that says you should stare into the Sun 40 minutes a day in case your brain is calcified?

Why don't we discuss the Washington Post article instead, since that's the only source of the NuttyNews article?

Please stop it But. That's what everyone does here. They dodge issues and don't think anybody notices. If I state something factual and then give my opinion about something that is just my opinion, that doesn't make my factual statement any less factual. To judge someone so harshly because he has some ideas that sound far-fetched doesn't turn him into a non-entity, someone you should never talk to, listen to, or pay any attention to. That is so ignorant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You're not making sense.

Yes I am. In the afferent account, it takes time for the light to get to Earth and to be interpreted as an image in the brain. If this light meets the requirements of efferent vision (brightness and size), it wouldn't matter that photons are being replaced because light is not bringing the image through space/time. That doesn't mean light isn't traveling at a constant rate, but it's not like the postman example that Spacemonkey gave, or the idea that the red photon would be seen before the blue one because the red photon came first. Instead of light bringing the world to us in delayed time, light would be revealing the world to us in real time. Light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause. I know I've said this countless times but there's no other way of explaining it.

[But]

In your account, there are photons at the retina at 12 o'clock. Right?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop it But. That's what everyone does here. They dodge issues and don't think anybody notices. If I state something factual and then give my opinion about something that is just my opinion, that doesn't make my factual statement any less factual. To judge someone so harshly because he has some ideas that sound far-fetched doesn't turn him into a non-entity, someone you should never talk to, listen to, or pay any attention to. That is so ignorant.

Don't dodge the issue. Do you think that the article about staring into the Sun is legitimate? Why don't we discuss the Washington Post article, since that's the only source that the nutjob has? Don't you think the Washington Post is a better source than someone who thinks you should stare into the Sun every day for 40 minutes because there may be chalk in your brain?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

In your account, there are photons at the retina at 12 o'clock. Right?

No, you are picturing a photon at the Sun at 12 noon and the same photon at the eye at 12 noon, which is impossible. We would not be able to see anything if the light wasn't at the eye which involves enough time for the Sun to become bright enough. Hypothetically, this would take less than a nanosecond. Remember the candle example? Why is it that the lighted candle in a dark room appears at our eye instantly? It's the same thing with the Sun. Imagine the Sun as the candle, and you in an enclosed space (the optical range). Distance is not a factor here because this is not about traveling light bringing anything to us through space/time. That's why the candle example is a fair comparison.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you are picturing a photon at the Sun at 12 noon and the same photon at the eye at 12 noon, which is impossible. We would not be able to see anything if the light wasn't at the eye which involves enough time for the Sun to become bright enough. Hypothetically, this would take less than a nanosecond. Remember the candle example? Why is it that the lighted candle in a dark room appears at our eye instantly? It's the same thing with the Sun. Imagine the Sun as the candle, and you in an enclosed space (the optical range). Distance is not a factor here because this is not about traveling light bringing anything to us through space/time. That's why the candle example is a fair comparison.

In your account, there are photons at the retina a few nanoseconds after 12 o'clock. Right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Don't dodge the issue. Do you think that the article about staring into the Sun is legitimate? Why don't we discuss the Washington Post article, since that's the only source that the nutjob has? Don't you think the Washington Post is a better source than someone who thinks you should stare into the Sun every day for 40 minutes because there may be chalk in your brain?

So let's talk about the Washington Post article.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

In your account, there are photons at the retina a few nanoseconds after 12 o'clock. Right?

Right. The same as the candle. Let me just say that this is not the way he came about making this claim yet no one seems to care. It's like having to prove 2+2=4 and at the same having to show that it's not 11 or no one will be interested in understanding why it's 4.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right. The same as the candle.

So photons from the Sun have teleported over to the retina at 12 o'clock or a few nanoseconds later, contrary to the known laws of physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am. In the afferent account, it takes time for the light to get to Earth and to be interpreted as an image in the brain. If this light meets the requirements of efferent vision (brightness and size), it wouldn't matter that photons are being replaced because light is not bringing the image through space/time. That doesn't mean light isn't traveling at a constant rate, but it's not like the postman example that Spacemonkey gave, or the idea that the red photon would be seen before the blue one because the red photon came first. Instead of light bringing the world to us in delayed time, light would be revealing the world to us in real time. Light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause. I know I've said this countless times but there's no other way of explaining it.

The problem is that you are not explaining it, you are just stating it and expecting everyone to accept it without explanation. Light does bring information to the eyes that is interpreted by the brain, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you are picturing a photon at the Sun at 12 noon and the same photon at the eye at 12 noon, which is impossible. We would not be able to see anything if the light wasn't at the eye which involves enough time for the Sun to become bright enough. Hypothetically, this would take less than a nanosecond. Remember the candle example? Why is it that the lighted candle in a dark room appears at our eye instantly? It's the same thing with the Sun. Imagine the Sun as the candle, and you in an enclosed space (the optical range). Distance is not a factor here because this is not about traveling light bringing anything to us through space/time. That's why the candle example is a fair comparison.

No, the error is that the light travels so fast that it seems instantaneous even though it takes a very small, but measurable, amount of time for the light to get to our eyes. It becomes really obvious when the object or light source is a great distance away, like the Sun or the Moons of Jupiter, and then the travel time of light is much longer and the delay more obvious. Vision on Earth is very fast and only seems to be instantaneous to those with little to no education or proper equipment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop it But. That's what everyone does here. They dodge issues and don't think anybody notices. If I state something factual and then give my opinion about something that is just my opinion, that doesn't make my factual statement any less factual. To judge someone so harshly because he has some ideas that sound far-fetched doesn't turn him into a non-entity, someone you should never talk to, listen to, or pay any attention to.

No-one is dodging anything, except you are dodging questions about the statements you have made. The issue is that Ethan A. Huff has no credibility so supporting that claim is quite the issue. You are dodging the issue by not establishing any credibility for Ethan A. Huff, and his far fetched ideas make it even harder to establish credibility for him. One outrageous idea makes all his other ideas suspect.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right. The same as the candle. Let me just say that this is not the way he came about making this claim yet no one seems to care. It's like having to prove 2+2=4 and at the same having to show that it's not 11 or no one will be interested in understanding why it's 4.

Lessans is making a statement equivalent to the statement 2+2= 11 or 5 or anything but 4. And this does take some explanation, but 2+2=4 does not require an explanation because it makes sense. Lessans came about his explanations because he was uneducated and didn't understand anything, Lessans was wrong. You are correct, no-one cares that Lessans came to his ideas in another way, because his ideas are wrong, and demonstrably so.