A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

This enterprise will prove useful when the time comes to take the Authentic Text to the good folks of Twitter.

The fourth item should use the proper Lessantonian spelling, i.e., #PresciousPresciousCunt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Because you resent Seymour Lessans.

I'm sure people can see, from this stupid post alone, why I have to make a change.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

This is for the best. An echo chamber where you can expound upon and try to sell (at $41.00 a pop ) your fraudulent Corrupted Text is the best option for a special snowflake such as yourself. I'm led to believe that Facebookers are rather dumb and gullible, so you may someday make a sale.

Your departure will benefit us as well. We have ChuckF, who is the real deal, the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy. With his able assistance and guidance, we will study and discuss the Authentic Text that Seymour Lessans wrote and published during his lifetime. And we will be able to do so without you anger-peeing blame and resentment all over this forum.

Goodbye forever, peacegirl! That is to say, see you in a few hours!

I already told you that I had no control over the POD publishing company's pricing. There are many people involved in the book's production. Everybody has to get paid. The money goes to the formatters, the printers, the customer service reps, the technicians, etc. And my kindle version is $4.99. Of that, I make a tiny percentage. The rest goes to Amazon. Why can't you get this through your thick skull? Because you want to keep up the lulz, that's why.

[Stephen Maturin]

You made it all of fifty minutes this time!

But seriously, peacegirl, we've been over this several times. You'll leave when I tell you to leave, not one second before.

show spoiler

[Florence Jellem]

back, dear. Forever isn't as long as it used to be.

Flo is also concerned about the famous #NoShareBedEquation, wherein the author mathematically demonstrates that married couples in the Golden Age will no longer be able to share a single bed. (If this has already been gone over and Flo missed it, please offer a link). I am concerned about this for two reasons: This arguably was peacegirl’s greatest corruption for lucre because right here in this thread she completely rewrote the original (if indeed it was original) text to say something completely different, and when the two diametrically opposed texts were posted side by side for her, she brazened it out and insisted there was no difference at all. Flo would also like to know if it can be shown that the author derived this profound insight by using non-commutative algebra via quaternions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You made it all of fifty minutes this time!

But seriously, peacegirl, we've been over this several times. You'll leave when I tell you to leave, not one second before.

show spoiler

You're not my puppet master. You're delusional. I will leave when people join. I don't like talking to myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

back, dear. Forever isn't as long as it used to be.

Flo is also concerned about the famous #NoShareBedEquation, wherein the author mathematically demonstrates that married couples in the Golden Age will no longer be able to share a single bed. (If this has already been gone over and Flo missed it, please offer a link). I am concerned about this for two reasons: This arguably was peacegirl’s greatest corruption for lucre because right here in this thread she completely rewrote the original (if indeed it was original) text to say something completely different, and when the two diametrically opposed texts were posted side by side for her, she brazened it out and insisted there was no difference at all. Flo would also like to know if it can be shown that the author derived this profound insight by using non-commutative algebra via quaternions.

If you had understood the basic principle you would have known that people cannot move in the direction of what they desire less. You would see that choosing not having another bed available knowing this could hurt their marriage would be mathematically impossible, according to the law of determinism or greater satisfaction. You really don't measure up to being the genius you think you are. Here are the two excerpts that you're making such a big deal about because you have nothing else.

After a nice dinner, they may desire to come home and
have a very romantic evening. However, there is one change about to
take place where sex and marriage is concerned that will absolutely
amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the great wisdom
that directs every aspect of this universe , for you are about to see how it
will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to
ever desire one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping
together, except as part of the sexual act, is about to take leave. This is
no different than other mathematical problems. If you understand w hat
it means that man’s will is not free and are able to perceive and extend
the mathematical relations thus far, you will easily see the reason for
this. Take note.

vs

After a nice dinner they may desire to come home and have
a romantic evening. However, there is one change about to take place
where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise everybody for
you are about to see why a couple will desire to own two beds between
the two of them. If you understand what it means that man’s will is
not free and are able to perceive and extend the mathematical
relations thus far, you will easily see the reason for this. Take note.



Using
today’s standards it would be unusual to see a married couple sleeping
in two separate beds. Most people would consider this a sign that the
marriage was on the rocks, which may be true in our present world.
If a couple preferred sleeping in a separate bed, they would then have
to tolerate the comments of family and friends. There is nothing
wrong with desiring to sleep together but it cannot be satisfied unless
both parties want the same thing. If they do not desire to move to
another bed after making love, then it is obvious that both are content
with the sleeping arrangement.

But having only one double bed as the
only alternative involves the same principle of considering only one
person’s desire, and it is a subtle form of advance blame. In our
present world we justify criticizing our partner for wanting to sleep
alone by invoking sleeping together as a condition of marriage. We
expect them to show their love by sacrificing their desire in favor of
ours which only reveals our selfishness by expecting them to give up
what they should not have to. Then when they insist on sleeping
alone, and because we believe we are right, we call them selfish and
strike the first blow to get even for something that does not infringe
on anyone else’s desires.

But when we know they have the right-of-
way and that they would never blame us for striking this blow no
matter what we do to hurt them for not satisfying our desire, then we
are given no choice but to sacrifice our selfishness and respect desires
that make no demands on us. In reality, by removing sleeping
together as a condition of marriage it actually makes the marriage
stronger because it considers everyone’s desires and removes the
obligation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you ....

peacegirl, you're an admitted liar. You've written in this very thread that lying is justified when it suits your purposes. Why would anyone ever believe anything that falls from your prevaricating maw?

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

(If this has already been gone over and Flo missed it, please offer a link).

ChuckF, the only True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy, discussed the #NoShareBedEquation here and here. Of course, he used only canonical material from the Authentic Text; he used not a word from the peacegirlian fraud known as the Corrupted Text. Topical material from the latter has been re-corrupted at least twice during peacegirl's blame-spewing sojourn here at , leaving the Corrupted Text multiple generations removed from the truth.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here are the two excerpts

peacegirl, here is where real seekers of truth stopped reading! Your Corrupted Text is of no interest. We reject your Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. We interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we do so without blame from you!

peacegirl, if you feel that my posts are repetitive, perhaps it is because you continuously and repeatedly make the same error: you assume that the Corrupted Text that you hawk online at $41.00 a copy is of value to someone here! As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am compelled of my own free will to demonstrate, mathematically and undeniably and in a manner that brooks no opposition, the reality that your Corrupted Text must be rejected because it is Corrupt.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that I had no control over the POD publishing company's pricing. There are many people involved in the book's production. Everybody has to get paid. The money goes to the formatters, the printers, the customer service reps, the technicians, etc. And my kindle version is $4.99. Of that, I make a tiny percentage. The rest goes to Amazon. Why can't you get this through your thick skull?

peacegirl, I suppose you can believe that if you want (you have that right of way) but I believe differently!

I imagine it would be frustrating to carefully explain facts and support that explanation with data and meet only stubborn refusal to consider any information that conflicts with a pre-existing-yet-mistaken belief! I imagine that would be very frustrating indeed.

[Vivisectus]

I will blame you as long as you give me justification. You have misconstrued the text to make it appear what it is not and are trying to convince the listeners that this discovery is not valid. What is the discovery Chuck? You can't answer because you are a fraud!

Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own book, let alone the Authentic version

If you sock me I might get
greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man
understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock
me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for
hurting me.

Not having a second bed? That is a kind of blaming.

Hitting someone in the face? That does not mean I blame you. Nor should you blame me in any way for choosing the path of maximum satisfaction by re-arranging your face for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own book, let alone the Authentic version

Not having a second bed? That is a kind of blaming.

Where is anyone blaming if both people want a second bed? You're very confused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hitting someone in the face? That does not mean I blame you. Nor should you blame me in any way for choosing the path of maximum satisfaction by re-arranging your face for you.

Hitting someone in the face because they hit you first is retaliation for what was done to you. It is justified. Most people who have been hit in the face will desire to hit the person back in the face; and eye for an eye. That's just human nature.

[Vivisectus]

So: I wont be able to hit you, because I will know you won't blame me for it. You will just understand that I was moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, as I am compelled to do of my own free will.

However, you will hit me back. But this is no way indicates you have just blamed me for hitting you.

But not making sure there is a second bed in case you want to sleep there? THAT is blaming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So: I wont be able to hit you, because I will know you won't blame me for it. You will just understand that I was moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, as I am compelled to do of my own free will.

However, you will hit me back. But this is no way indicates you have just blamed me for hitting you.

It is a retaliation for you having done something to me. Blame can go along with it. I may say, why did you do that which is a form of blame.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But not making sure there is a second bed in case you want to sleep there? THAT is blaming.

No that's not blaming. It's when try to get angry (blame) at your partner for their desire to sleep elsewhere.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a retaliation for you having done something to me. Blame can go along with it. I may say, why did you do that which is a form of blame.

No that's not blaming. It's when try to get angry (blame) at your partner for their desire to sleep elsewhere.

Because I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I will de-confuse the listeners and correct peacegirl's Corruption.

The person who wishes to have a common marital bed strikes the first blow (as Alice does in the Authentic Text.) Not having a second bed available is, in fact, a form of advance blame. Alice's desire to sleep with her husband is, in itself, selfish.

God will not permit any choice in this matter.



Vivisectus, I suggest applying this to your problems with Mrs. Sectus regarding television viewing habits. God will not permit you to have less than two televisions. The same is true for radios, computers, etc. - any common resource which more than one person may wish to occupy at a given moment. God will require you to have (at least) two available at all times.

[Vivisectus]

It is a retaliation for you having done something to me. Blame can go along with it. I may say, why did you do that which is a form of blame.

But in no way is that a form of attributing blame, of a judgement, and it does not inhibit the function of conscience?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Because I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I will de-confuse the listeners and correct peacegirl's Corruption.

The person who wishes to have a common marital bed strikes the first blow (as Alice does in the Authentic Text.) Not having a second bed available is, in fact, a form of advance blame. Alice's desire to sleep with her husband is, in itself, selfish.

God will not permit any choice in this matter.



Vivisectus, I suggest applying this to your problems with Mrs. Sectus regarding television viewing habits. God will not permit you to have less than two televisions. The same is true for radios, computers, etc. - any common resource which more than one person may wish to occupy at a given moment. God will require you to have (at least) two available at all times.

But then it is also mathematically undeniable that expecting Mrs Sectus to live in the same house as me is also a first blow, and a form of advance blame. Just having the one house is tantamount to asking her where she is going if she happens to want to live somewhere else for a while, and what business of mine is that?

After all, expecting her to live in the same house makes selfish demands on her, while her desire to live down the road does not make any demands on me whatever. God will not permit me to have just one house.

[ChuckF]

He extends the principles of the Authentic Text! Expecting your spouse to live in the same house with you is saying, in so many words, "I want you near me. Come back here, Mrs. Sectus." In order for you to satisfy that desire, you would require her to sacrifice her desire to live alone. This is striking a first blow.

So long as you remain sexually available (and "fit as a fiddle and ready for love") to one another at all times, you will be compelled of your own free will to maintain always at least one separate home.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Because I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I will de-confuse the listeners and correct peacegirl's Corruption.

The person who wishes to have a common marital bed strikes the first blow (as Alice does in the Authentic Text.) Not having a second bed available is, in fact, a form of advance blame. Alice's desire to sleep with her husband is, in itself, selfish.

God will not permit any choice in this matter.



Vivisectus, I suggest applying this to your problems with Mrs. Sectus regarding television viewing habits. God will not permit you to have less than two televisions. The same is true for radios, computers, etc. - any common resource which more than one person may wish to occupy at a given moment. God will require you to have (at least) two available at all times.

You are so confused. All those examples are not analogous. No one is making any demands on you if someone is at the computer or watching t.v. You are looking for flaws that don't exist.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused.

peacegirl, I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I reject your Corrupted Text, because it is Corrupt I shall interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and I shall do so without blame from you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

He extends the principles of the Authentic Text! Expecting your spouse to live in the same house with you is saying, in so many words, "I want you near me. Come back here, Mrs. Sectus." In order for you to satisfy that desire, you would require her to sacrifice her desire to live alone. This is striking a first blow.

It would be striking a first blow if your spouse didn't want to live together, but what would be the reason when both parties are happy? It is true that in today's world many couples don't get along under one roof which is why they often get back together after they separate and live apart.

Originally Posted by Chuck

So long as you remain sexually available (and "fit as a fiddle and ready for love") to one another at all times, you will be compelled of your own free will to maintain always at least one separate home.

If you can afford two houses, that may be the way to go but most people like the companionship of being together until arguments start and the love they had for one another begins to erode.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I reject your Corrupted Text, because it is Corrupt I shall interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and I shall do so without blame from you.

I will do whatever I want without your phony stewardship.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be striking a first blow if your spouse didn't want to live together, but what would be the reason when both parties are happy? It is true that in today's world many couples don't get along under one roof which is why they often get back together after they separate and live apart.

If you can afford two houses, that may be the way to go but most people like the companionship of being together until arguments start and the love they had for one another begins to erode.

peacegirl, I reject your Corruptions along with your Corrupted Text. Your confused Corruptions are of no interest because they are Corrupt.

God will not give either party a choice in this matter. Vivisectus and Mrs. Sectus will be compelled, of their own free will, to have two houses always available. Notwithstanding your Corrupted Text, the Authentic Text is clear on this point.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will do whatever I want without your phony stewardship.

peacegirl, you have that right of way! It is not in my nature as the True Steward of the Authentic Text to blame you for it.

I will do whatever I want without your phony $41.00 Corrupted Text that you hawk online for lucre.

[Vivisectus]

Ah but Peacegirl, why would they have two beds if they are happy together? Most people like the companionship of sleeping together. And yet the book tells us unambiguously that we will be compelled, of our own free will, to always have two beds available.

Surely what is sauce for the goose must be compared to apples.

You do not seem to understand that we are extending the principles which reveal the relations which shows why not having two houses is clearly a form of advance blame. It is a subtle first blow to marriage, one struck by the person who first suggests moving in together. Suppose one day I would like to live somewhere else. Is not Mrs Sectus saying to me in so many words, if no other house is available, "Come back Mr Sectus, I want you to stay here?"

I think your response, if you are really honest would be "Yes, Vivisectus, she would be saying that, come to think of it!"

So it is clear that the desire for us to even be in the same building, once we have expressed the love of each others genitals, which is what marriage is, is selfish and wrong, because it requires two people to fulfill, while my desire does not require anything of her.