A revolution in thought

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People, can you see how he repeats himself? He will continue saying the same thing 100 times. He can't even answer one question. He doesn't have a clue what this discovery is even about. I will fight fire with fire. He's a liar and a fraud.

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward
#ChuckIsAFraud

The poor little dear is so oblivious to the irony of it all.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

The poor little dear is so oblivious to the irony of it all.

RIGHT? Every time I think it can't possibly be any clearer...

[Florence Jellem]

Can peacegirl pass the mirror test?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That just isn't true. GPS systems don't need special relativity to work. I'm not sure what other technologies you're talking about.

Make up your mind. You keep saying "Einstein was right," then you say (often in the very next sentence) that "time is not a fourth dimension."

You can't have it both ways. Pick a position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People, can you see how he [ChuckF] repeats himself? He will continue saying the same thing 100 times. He can't even answer one question. He doesn't have a clue what this discovery is even about. I will fight fire with fire. He's a liar and a fraud.

You can't be this clueless! This has got to be a joke on your part!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Make up your mind. You keep saying "Einstein was right," then you say (often in the very next sentence) that "time is not a fourth dimension."

You can't have it both ways. Pick a position.

You can't be this clueless! This has got to be a joke on your part!

No, it's no joke. You aren't in the position to judge Lone Ranger because you don't know what his main discovery is either. Hint: It's not about the eyes. It's pathetic.

[Florence Jellem]

Peacegirl, dear, think of it this way. ChuckF’s True Stewardship is like a closed system in which the mirror image of his True Stewardship arrives at him instantaneously (or else in a nanosecond), even though it takes time to get to him. This is in accord with the inverse square law, of course. When the conditions for ChuckF’s true stewardship are met — ChuckF is big enough, and bright enough, to understand — then, voila! ChuckF understands and is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

I’m sure that must be clear to you. If not, then we can’t help you. We’ve explained it to the best of our abilities and if you don’t understand, dear, then you are booked for insubordination and need to go back to basic training.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't in the position to judge Lone Ranger because you don't know what his main discovery is either. Hint: It's not about the eyes. It's pathetic.

So now peacegirl is expressly describing Lessans' main discovery as "pathetic." The resentment drips from every single word she writes.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So now peacegirl is expressly describing Lessans' main discovery as "pathetic." The resentment drips from every single word she writes.

Together with rambling Corruptions the Corrupted Text, her blameful and resentful rejection of the Authentic Text affirms to me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, that peacegirl has for these decades simply failed to comprehend the Authentic Text as written by the author and published in his lifetime. Unable to do so, she set out to produce the Corrupted Text out of frustration and spite, and now hawks it for sale online.

Let us seek the wisdom of the Authentic Text still again in the Parable of the Breasts: the bewildered father, unable to rely on blameless citizen doctor to enhance his understanding, sagely decides to continue to breastfeed his own child with his own breasts. He does not, for example, set out to Corrupt his wife's breastmilk with bitter sows' milk, and then bottle it and sell it as pure for $41.00 a bottle on Amazon.com!

peacegirl's Corrupted Text is a hurt to the Authentic Text. Yet even so, I do not blame her for it, because it is not in my nature as the True Steward of the Authentic Text to do so.

All that we can do - all that we are compelled to do of our own free will, my friends and innumerable masses of lurkers reading this thread - is to reject the Corrupted Text, and to interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. We shall do it without blame from peacegirl.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's no joke. You aren't in the position to judge Lone Ranger because you don't know what his main discovery is either. Hint: It's not about the eyes. It's pathetic.

And again you've completely failed to get it. Seriously, you can't be that dense; it's got to be a put-on.

Chuck has all but spelled it out for you several times now and you still can't see what's going on?


On a completely unrelated topic [it's simply mind-boggling that someone has to point out to you that this is not about any of Lessans' alleged "discoveries"], neither you nor Lessans have ever gotten around to presenting a case that there was any "discovery" on his part. Hint: There's an important difference between an unevidenced assertion and an argument.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And again you've completely failed to get it. Seriously, you can't be that dense; it's got to be a put-on.

Chuck has all but spelled it out for you several times now and you still can't see what's going on?

Don't underestimate the mental fog.



#mentalfrog

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Make up your mind. You keep saying "Einstein was right," then you say (often in the very next sentence) that "time is not a fourth dimension."

You can't have it both ways. Pick a position.

This is what Lessans was referring to. I'm leaving it at that. If you want to make up shit by telling me my book is unauthentic, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive
and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that
they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People, can you see how he [ChuckF] repeats himself? He will continue saying the same thing 100 times. He can't even answer one question. He doesn't have a clue what this discovery is even about. I will fight fire with fire. He's a liar and a fraud.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You can't be this clueless! This has got to be a joke on your part!

No joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's no joke. You aren't in the position to judge Lone Ranger because you don't know what his main discovery is either. Hint: It's not about the eyes. It's pathetic.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And again you've completely failed to get it. Seriously, you can't be that dense; it's got to be a put-on.

Chuck has all but spelled it out for you several times now and you still can't see what's going on?

He is a liar. My book is not corrupt. It's a compilation of all of his books and it was done in good taste. He is pulling out pages that are explicit (and easily goofed on) when not understood in context. He is the corrupter.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

On a completely unrelated topic [it's simply mind-boggling that someone has to point out to you that this is not about any of Lessans' alleged "discoveries"], neither you nor Lessans have ever gotten around to presenting a case that there was any "discovery" on his part. Hint: There's an important difference between an unevidenced assertion and an argument.

I have explained what his observations were which led to his discovery. Regardless of whether you think it is valid or not, do you even know what it is? If you're going to be flippant, please don't answer.

[Vivisectus]

Actually, your book just asserts that conscience works in such a way that we cannot justify doing unprovoked harm if we feel that we will never be blamed.

But your book never explains what that conclusion is based on. Your book promises evidence, but never gets back to it.

I have asked multiple times for you to clear that up. Your book states conscience works that way. What evidence do you have that this is the case?

What does the Authentic text say about it anyway?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, your book just asserts that conscience works in such a way that we cannot justify doing unprovoked harm if we feel that we will never be blamed.

But your book never explains what that conclusion is based on. Your book promises evidence, but never gets back to it.

I have asked multiple times for you to clear that up. Your book states conscience works that way. What evidence do you have that this is the case?

What does the Authentic text say about it anyway?

Lessans' astute observations led to a surprising (and falsifiable) conclusion. An experiment could be conducted by creating the conditions in a simulation that would prove he was right. The authentic text is no different than my text.

[Vivisectus]

Lessans' astute observations led to a surprising (and falsifiable) conclusion. An experiment could be conducted by creating the conditions in a simulation that would prove he was right.

Basically, you are saying that there is no evidence, but we could go and get some.

Then it is not a conclusion: in fact, it is not even a hypothesis yet. It is a speculative thought.

So why does your book promise evidence when there is none yet? Something like that is not likely to impress panels of scientists (not political scientists) looking in to this.

And why does your book simply go on as if it is all already proven when we simply do not know as you just admitted yourself? It has not been tested yet!

The authentic text is no different than my text. Chuck is making shit up.

We shall see what the True Steward has to say. At least he does not simply change what he does not like.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to make up shit by telling me my book is unauthentic, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

Friends, observe peacegirl's resentful rejection of that basic principle, slide rule, corollary - THOU SHALL NOT BLAME.

peacegirl, there is no reason to tell you that your Corrupted Text is Corrupt. That is like telling the chimpanzee that her own feces she's slinging across the field smell bad!

Rather, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am compelled of my own free will to teach the world that the only authentic text is the Authentic Text, as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and that your Corrupted Text is Corrupt and must therefore be rejected. My conscience will not permit the unsuspecting to be gulled by a Corrupting huckster into paying $41.00 of their hard-earned money for a Corrupted Text.

Excerpts from your Corrupted Text are of no interest. We will interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is a liar. My book is not corrupt. It's a compilation of all of his books and it was done in good taste. He is pulling out pages that are explicit (and easily goofed on) when not understood in context. He is the corrupter.

peacegirl, of course your Corrupted Text is Corrupt. I have demonstrated its Corrupt nature by undeniable mathematical relation, as surely as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8 as I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text! But I shall do so again: the only authentic text is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. Other texts are corrupt, like your Corrupted Text.

peacegirl, all of the Corruptions in your Corrupted Text are like a gang-rape of the Authentic Text. Your Corrupted Text is a hurt to the Authentic Text.

But as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The authentic text is no different than my text.

peacegirl, your Corrupted Text is Corrupt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Basically, you are saying that there is no evidence, but we could go and get some.

Then it is not a conclusion: in fact, it is not even a hypothesis yet. It is a speculative thought.

So why does your book promise evidence when there is none yet? Something like that is not likely to impress panels of scientists (not political scientists) looking in to this.

And why does your book simply go on as if it is all already proven when we simply do not know as you just admitted yourself? It has not been tested yet!

We shall see what the True Steward has to say. At least he does not simply change what he does not like.

If you follow his reasoning, it is testable Vivisectus. He observed that human beings need a justification to harm others. Those justifications are threefold. When these justifications are removed (and he shows how in the book), no one will desire striking a first blow (an unprovoked attack) as a preferable option.

[Vivisectus]

No-one in the world had disproven that all jealousy is actually caused by the color green either, but that does not tell us much. The problem is that none of this has been proven. We cannot know if it is correct until we do.

Yet your book claims it HAS been proven - that it is in fact an undeniable fact.

By your own admission this is not correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No-one in the world had disproven that all jealousy is actually caused by the color green either, but that does not tell us much. The problem is that none of this has been proven. We cannot know if it is correct until we do.

Yet your book claims it HAS been proven - that it is in fact an undeniable fact.

By your own admission this is not correct.

It has been proven. Conscience works in the way he described based on his observations, but if you don't see the proof there are other ways to prove it. Keep on mocking him, it will never stop the truth from being told.

[Vivisectus]

Please to produce the proof, then?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please to produce the proof, then?

Vivisectus, he gave his observations which hold true. We have to have a justification to hurt or kill others. Without one of those justifications we cannot gain satisfaction in choosing this option as the preferable alternative. Be more patient before rushing to judgment!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, he gave his observations which hold. We have to have a justification to hurt or kill others. Without one of those justifications we cannot gain satisfaction in choosing this option as the preferable choice. Be more patient before rushing to judgment!

No, in your book the narrator says that he observed something. In other words, he claimed conscience works a certain way. And then promised "undeniable evidence", which never appears.

I could say "I have observed, thought and read many books, and I have spotted a pattern in human behavior and history: all bad deeds are caused by the color blue!"

You would say "That is a bold claim. Can you prove it?"

If I were you, I would then say airily that I gave my observations and they hold, that blue causes bad thoughts which lead to bad deeds, and that you should be patient and not rush to judgement. If you carefully read what I said, you will see that blue causes bad thoughts. Also, this can be tested.

But none of that makes it true. It remains an unsupported claim. The same goes for your book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, in your book the narrator says that he observed something. In other words, he claimed conscience works a certain way. And then promised "undeniable evidence", which never appears.

Because it cannot be proven using the scientific method, which is what you're looking for. But it can be proven by simulating the conditions of the new world. You can also observe the excuses people conjure up to justify their actions. The justifications are not always obvious but if you dig deeper into a person'a psyche they are always there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could say "I have observed, thought and read many books, and I have spotted a pattern in human behavior and history: all bad deeds are caused by the color blue!"

You would say "That is a bold claim. Can you prove it?"

If I were you, I would then say airily that I gave my observations and they hold, that blue causes bad thoughts which lead to bad deeds, and that you should be patient and not rush to judgement. If you carefully read what I said, you will see that blue causes bad thoughts. Also, this can be tested.

But none of that makes it true. It remains an unsupported claim. The same goes for your book.

It's quite different because there's no correlation whatsoever between the color blue and bad thoughts that can be observed. Moreover there is no way to prove that blue causes bad thoughts in any kind of environment. That's not true with this claim.

[The Lone Ranger]

And still she can't see it!


Honestly, if ChuckF sits down and provides a detailed explanation of what he's doing, does anyone think that peacegirl would even be capable of understanding what's going on?

By all the evidence gathered so far, the answer is apparently: "no."

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, in your book the narrator says that he observed something. In other words, he claimed conscience works a certain way. And then promised "undeniable evidence", which never appears.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Because it cannot be proven using the scientific method, which is what you're looking for.

The evidence that was promised was never provided because it cannot be proven scientifically? In a book that goes on and on about how what it says is scientific, which it confuses with self-evident?



Good one!

But I am glad you agree there is no evidence.

But it can be proven by simulating the conditions of the new world.

You assume.

You can also observe the excuses people conjure up to justify their actions. The justifications are not always obvious but if you dig deeper into a person'a psyche they are always there.

You can also observe that when bad things occur, somewhere some blue light is involved! So does that count as evidence for my Astute Observation?

It's quite different because there's no correlation whatsoever between the color blue and bad thoughts that can be observed.

That is just because you are not observing astutely enough. There is always some blue light around at some stage. We could prove it, by simulating an environment with as little blue light as possible. Also, you can observe that when bad things happen, some blue color was at some stage involved. It has never been disproven that it has no effect.

Moreover there is no way to prove that blue causes bad thoughts in any kind of environment. That's not true with this claim.

Not at all - we can simulate the conditions in a minimal blue environment. I mean I am just claiming that based on absolutely no knowledge, but then again so were you when you claimed this could be proven in some weird social experiment!