A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because I have some time to waste.

Why would you waste time? Time is a precious commodity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I know, to protect others from my lies.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. Your lies are so obvious no-one needs to be defended from them.

That's not what TLR thinks.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still believe that the photons are traveling with the wavelength/frequency to the eye...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which you agree with.

That's where you're confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the difference is that the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye IF the object can be seen, or we wouldn't be able to see said object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is not a difference, as the afferent account agrees with this. The difference is that you still claim light can be at the retina before it gets there.

That's not true. Light IS there if the requirements are met.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The function of light changes because it reveals the real world rather than bring the world to us.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, not a difference.

It makes a big difference because of the reasons given.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model is the complete opposite of what is believed to be true without it violating the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet every explanation you've attempted violates not only physics but basic logic as well.

Not when you understand that we're not interpreting light, which is there at the retina, if Lessans is right about efferent vision, which I believe he is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm so done with this discussion and I don't want to rehash it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet here you are, doing it again and again and again...

Hopefully I will be moving on the other avenues of reaching interested readers in a very short time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would you waste time?

Why do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what TLR thinks.

Am I supposed to care if TLR and I differ on our opinions about your lying?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where you're confused.

So you now disagree that light travels to the eye with a wavelength and frequency? Do tell.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true.

What part of what I said was not true?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light IS there if the requirements are met.

But you have no idea how it gets there, right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes a big difference because of the reasons given.

It isn't a difference at all. The afferent account agrees that light with its wavelength and frequency must be at the eye for us to be able to see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not when you understand that we're not interpreting light, which is there at the retina, if Lessans is right about efferent vision, which I believe he is.

You still can't explain how light can be there at the retina before it has had time to travel there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hopefully I will be moving on the other avenues of reaching interested readers in a very short time.

Who are you kidding? You will never be moving on.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Spacemonkey, this has nothing to do with the function of light in the efferent account. Light never stops traveling but that is not what is at issue. Light is already present IF the object can be seen because that is a requirement for sight. But we're not waiting for light to arrive because light is not bringing the information to be decoded. You think there is a gap between the eye and the object, and that light hasn't gotten to the eye yet because it hasn't had time to travel there, but that's not true IF we are seeing the actual object or landscape in real time since it creates a closed system where distance and time are not factors. Light becomes an instant mirror image of what is seen as long as the object has enough brightness and is within our field of view.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, this has nothing to do with the function of light in the efferent account. Light never stops traveling but that is not what is at issue. Light is already present IF the object can be seen because that is a requirement for sight. But we're not waiting for light to arrive because light is not bringing the information to be decoded. You think there is a gap between the eye and the object, and that light hasn't gotten to the eye yet because it hasn't had time to travel there, but that's not true IF we are seeing the actual object or landscape in real time since it creates a closed system where distance and time are not factors. Light becomes an instant mirror image of what is seen as long as the object has enough brightness and is within our field of view.

Well look at that! Stupid weasel-woman dodged the questions again. I bet no-one saw that coming.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would you waste time?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you?

It is a waste of time to discuss this topic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what TLR thinks.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Am I supposed to care if TLR and I differ on our opinions about your lying?

That wasn't the point I was making. He must think people need his expertise to explain why Lessans was wrong. He must think people aren't smart enough to come to their own conclusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where you're confused.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you now disagree that light travels to the eye with a wavelength and frequency? Do tell.

Lessans said all along that the "image" (the information) is not reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What part of what I said was not true?

Would you please post the previous sentence as I don't know what I was responding to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light IS there if the requirements are met.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you have no idea how it gets there, right?

Let up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes a big difference because of the reasons given.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It isn't a difference at all. The afferent account agrees that light with its wavelength and frequency must be at the eye for us to be able to see.

It is at the eye, and it makes a big difference whether we see in delayed or real time, as Lessans explained.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not when you understand that we're not interpreting light, which is there at the retina, if Lessans is right about efferent vision, which I believe he is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still can't explain how light can be there at the retina before it has had time to travel there.

I gave it my best shot. If you don't get it, there's nothing I can do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hopefully I will be moving on the other avenues of reaching interested readers in a very short time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who are you kidding? You will never be moving on.

I moved on plenty of times, but this is the only forum that I know of that is not moderated. I tried moderation and I don't like it because I feel the moderators have too much power to ban you or to cut you off. Ironically, they don't do much to protect an individual from flaming which is the reason I went back to moderation in the first place. So I came back here as a last resort. This is not the best venue, I realize that, but at least it's keeping the book alive until I find something better. Vivisectus has given me some good ideas which I will be working on soon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well look at that! Stupid weasel-woman dodged the questions again. I bet no-one saw that coming.

No Spacemonkey, there is no postman mistake. It doesn't even apply because the light that is allowing us to see the object produces a mirror image at the retina. There is no travel time at all. We can see the object because the requirements of brightness and size have been met.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a waste of time to discuss this topic.

And yet here you are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That wasn't the point I was making.

It's the only point you made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said all along that the "image" (the information) is not reflected.

Which has nothing to do with what I asked. Do you deny that light travels to the eye with a wavelength and frequency?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please post the previous sentence as I don't know what I was responding to.

No.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let up.

No, I won't. This is the core of your delusion here. You keep claiming light will be at the retina before it has had time to travel there, but you cannot explain where this light comes from or how it gets there. You've been refusing to deal with this problem for years now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is at the eye...

Where does it come from and how does it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave it my best shot. If you don't get it, there's nothing I can do.

Your best shot? You've never even tried to address this problem. There is absolutely nothing for us to get.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I moved on plenty of times...

And yet here you still are. Weaseling and evading just like when you first arrived here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, there is no postman mistake. It doesn't even apply because the light that is allowing us to see the object produces a mirror image at the retina. There is no travel time at all. We can see the object because the requirements of brightness and size have been met.

Then it should be easy for you to answer these questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet here you are.

So let's change the topic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That wasn't the point I was making.

It's the only point you made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said all along that the "image" (the information) is not reflected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which has nothing to do with what I asked. Do you deny that light travels to the eye with a wavelength and frequency?

You are using your logic to try to figure this out rather than trying to understand if the eye works the way he described. If it does, then we can have another conversation. This conversation is useless.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please post the previous sentence as I don't know what I was responding to.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No.

Then don't expect me to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I won't. This is the core of your delusion here. You keep claiming light will be at the retina before it has had time to travel there, but you cannot explain where this light comes from or how it gets there. You've been refusing to deal with this problem for years now.

Nope, I haven't refused. You just can't seem to grasp that there is no travel time because you're concentrating on the fact that light travels, therefore it is bringing the information (the wavelength/frequency) to the eye through space/time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is at the eye...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where does it come from and how does it get there?

It doesn't get there. It's already there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave it my best shot. If you don't get it, there's nothing I can do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your best shot? You've never even tried to address this problem. There is absolutely nothing for us to get.

So let it go Spacemonkey. If you think I'm delusional, so be it. I will live happily with my delusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I moved on plenty of times...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet here you still are. Weaseling and evading just like when you first arrived here.

I told you why I'm here. Stop cutting off the rest of my post to make it look like I didn't answer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So let's change the topic.

No.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using your logic to try to figure this out rather than trying to understand if the eye works the way he described. If it does, then we can have another conversation. This conversation is useless.

It is useless because you keep evading questions. Like this one: Do you deny that light travels to the eye with a wavelength and frequency?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then don't expect me to answer.

I never do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I haven't refused.

You are refusing right now!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just can't seem to grasp that there is no travel time because you're concentrating on the fact that light travels...

Do you deny that light travels?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't get there. It's already there.

To be there at time T it had to have gotten there at some time before T. Unless you are claiming that it was always there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why I'm here...

I never asked. You're the only one who doesn't understand why you can't leave.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that my choice is the only necessary choice. If P, then necessarily Q.

'Only necessary' is a pleonasm. It should be 'necessary' or 'only possible'. Further I do not see why a 'forced choice' somehow would be a modal fallacy. Modal logic is about how propositions with modalities (necessary, possible, probable etc) are logically related. So I still do not get your point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It depends in what context.

What is unclear about 'this context'?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I say I was forced to drink the poison because I was tied down and had no way of escape, that is a far cry from saying I was forced (or compelled) to do what I did because, at that moment, it gave me greater satisfaction. Both situations are not in our control.

So it does not matter if I say that I am compelled or forced by my preferences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that, but there is more than enough to distinguish Lessans' ideas from those other theories. None of these theories will change our world in a drastic way, but they will be a stepping stone in the right direction by becoming more compassionate, by using rehabilitative techniques, and by limiting punishment to more serious offenses that will ultimately reduce the prison systems' overcrowding. This way they can focus their attention on the most dangerous offenders and use tax payer money on prevention rather than building more prisons.

You are running too fast, peacegirl. As usual you react on something I did not say: I did not say that Lessans' theory cannot be distinguished from others. I said that that the empirical support that you collected so far also supports hard determinism and compatibilism. So it is not possible to say which theory is true based on your empirical support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can believe that real time seeing is impossible because you think it violates physics, but that's only because you don't understand the mechanism as to how this is possible.

You only say that it doesn't violate physics, because you haven't the slightest idea about physics: you have showed that to us endless times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't ask me what the mechanism is; I've already explained it.

No, you never did. You seem not even to understand what is asked for. Or what might also be true: you perfectly know that you have no idea. So you must evade the question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would you waste time? Time is a precious commodity.

Now that is rich, coming from someone who has wasted 13+ years of her life on a hopeless quest to validate and bring recognition to her fathers ideas.

Lessans was wrong.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But don't you see, there is no free will in the free will sense that is described by the free will skeptic? This is a strawman that you're building. If you choose not to get this, then there is no basis for communication because it becomes a play in semantics which will get us nowhere. Please read this and respond.

What a great phrase: free will in the free will sense! How do you think you can clearly approach the topic of free will if you use such prose?

The best strategy to cope with such 'strawman-fallacy-accusations' is to clearly separate the different kinds of free will: LFW and CFW.

Libertarian Free Will defines free will as the capability to start new causal chains that are not based on the normal causality in the world. LFW is itself uncaused by normal physical causes. However this means there must be disturbances in the normal causal followup of events, therefore it is also known as Contra Causal Free Will. It also means that determinism can't be true, because that would not allow for interruptions of the normal causal flow of events.

Compatibilist Free Will defines free will as the capability to act according the motivations and beliefs of the agent. If an agent has enough insights to anticipate possible consequences of his actions, be they physical (do not bend to far over the cliff!), social (how will he react), or moral (I will be punished if I do this). As we know that future-anticipating-machines exist, there is no reason to see why determinism would contradict CFW. Even stronger, some adequate level of determinism is needed, otherwise an agent cannot foresee what will happen because of his actions, and there must also be a regular relationship between motivations and beliefs at one side, and actions at the other. Most compatibilsts (as I do) think that the more determinism is true, the more free we can be. Otherwise some indetermined jerk could cause that I do something I did not want.

Having cleared the definitions in this way, we can discuss, also with the free will sceptics. At 2 points free will sceptics and compatibilists totally agree:

• LFW does not exist. It is already inherently incoherent.
• Determinism is grosso modo true: chance processes as they exist in quantum physics do not contribute to free will. At most they are a thread for free will.

So now the discussion is if the capabilities that humans have are worth to be called free will. That would be kind of silly discussion, so more important is what conclusions we can draw from the non-existence of LFW:

Do we need LFW to justify our praxis of assigning responsibility and punishing people?

The compatibilists' answer is clear: no. Consciousness about the consequences of our actions is enough. But clearly, we should not treat people as if they are absolute free in the LFW sense, and therefore are ultimate responsible for their actions.

So after clearing the definitions, the only question that should divide 'free will sceptics' and compatibilists is what conclusions do we draw from the non-existence of LFW: do we have to change our moral and judiciary praxis in the light of this knowledge? If I may try an answer: yes, in the case of the USA, because people are treated as if they are absolute moral agents; no for the Netherlands and Switzerland, where the judicial system takes the backgrounds of people into account, and has as main target to avoid recidivism. If we call the capability to anticipate the future (and act according to it!) free will or not is in fact secondary.

The straw man of many 'free will sceptics' is that by denying LFW they think we must completely change our moral and judicial praxis, because people are nothing more than puppets on causal strings. They think that only LFW supports this praxis.

To turn one of their arguments around: if we define god as 'the universe' they do as if the universe does not exist, because god does not exist. It is the stupidity they accuse compatibilists of.

So: now you can look if these 5 strawmen still hold. I won't do the thinking for you, where you are too lazy to bring the arguments yourself. I wrote this text piece myself, so, I expect original texts from you too. No copy/pastes anymore, not even from the book of your father. If your arguments are inspired by your father's books, great. But they must be your arguments. Tell me where my strawman is.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Peacegirl, if you understand the mechanism of efferent vision, as you say you do, then it should be easy to answer these questions. So please do. See, I answer them from my point of view, afferent vision, it is so easy:

Are they traveling photons?
Yes
Did they come from the Sun?
Yes
Did they get to the film by traveling?
Yes
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Yes
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
No

Ready. Took me 1 minute. Now you.

[The Lone Ranger]

[quote=peacegirl;1237053][quote=Spacemonkey;1237038]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what TLR thinks.

Don't put words into my mouth -- especially when they're outright lies.


No sane, intelligent and educated person could believe yours and Lessans' claims, since they're 1.) self-contradictory (your story and your "explanations" change more often than the wind does), 2.) completely destroyed by the application of simple logic, and 3.) thoroughly disproved at every turn by literal mountains of contrary evidence.

All of which has been explained to you in great detail.

Your response is to avoid answering legitimate criticisms and questions, to lie, to willfully obfuscate, to lie some more, and when all else fails to deny reality itself.

You're welcome to your delusions; no one takes them seriously except you. But when you lie about specific things, it's the duty of any honest educator and scientist to point out the lies.

Again, all of this has been explained to you before. That you continue to lie about such things is most unbecoming. And people will continue to remind you that you're a lying liar when you behave as such.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now that is rich, coming from someone who has wasted 13+ years of her life on a hopeless quest to validate and bring recognition to her fathers ideas.

Lessans was wrong.

Nothing is wasted; everything is a stepping stone to something better. 20/20 hindsight may tell me that maybe I could have marketed the book better, or gotten the book into the "right" hands quicker if I had done something differently. But that would have meant something in the causal chain of events --- that compelled to make the choices I made --- would have been different, which is impossible. What I do know is that I have given my best within my physical and financial limitations, which I will continue to do.

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;1237085][quote=peacegirl;1237053]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't put words into my mouth -- especially when they're outright lies.


No sane, intelligent and educated person could believe yours and Lessans' claims, since they're 1.) self-contradictory (your story and your "explanations" change more often than the wind does), 2.) completely destroyed by the application of simple logic, and 3.) thoroughly disproved at every turn by literal mountains of contrary evidence.

All of which has been explained to you in great detail.

Your response is to avoid answering legitimate criticisms and questions, to lie, to willfully obfuscate, to lie some more, and when all else fails to deny reality itself.

You're welcome to your delusions; no one takes them seriously except you. But when you lie about specific things, it's the duty of any honest educator and scientist to point out the lies.

Again, all of this has been explained to you before. That you continue to lie about such things is most unbecoming. And people will continue to remind you that you're a lying liar when you behave as such.

I'm sorry you think of me this way. I have never lied nor have I ever done anything but share my father's claims. If you think they are false, that's fine, but to accuse me of all these horrible things is really uncalled for because I'm not all of these horrible things.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I do know is that I have given my best, which I will continue to do.

No you didn't, your best would have been to spend time with your grandchildren. I spent most of the last 10 years taking care of 2 of my grandchildren, now they are in school and I don't see them as much. You have been wasting 13+ years compiling and hawking your fathers joke. That time could have been much better spent doing almost anything else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Peacegirl, if you understand the mechanism of efferent vision, as you say you do, then it should be easy to answer these questions. So please do. See, I answer them from my point of view, afferent vision, it is so easy:

Are they traveling photons?
Yes
Did they come from the Sun?
Yes
Did they get to the film by traveling?
Yes
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Yes
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
No

Ready. Took me 1 minute. Now you.

I told you that if the Sun was bright enough (which may have taken a nanosecond for the light to travel just like it takes a nanosecond for the light from a candle to travel), and we were gazing in that direction, we would see the Sun being turned on less a nanosecond. The bottom line: it would not take 8 minutes to see it. Obviously, the sun would have to be large enough to be seen, or else there would be no photons impinging on our retina for there to be a connection that would allow sight to occur.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that if the Sun was bright enough (which may have taken a nanosecond for the light to travel), and we were gazing in that direction, we would see the Sun being turned on at noon less a nanosecond. The bottom line: it would not take 8 minutes to see it. Obviously, the sun would have to be large enough to be seen, or else there would be no photons impinging on our retina for there to be a connection.

Are you now saying that light takes time to travel from the sun to the retina? The speed of light has been measured and is known, just because you and Lessans didn't know what the speed of light is, doesn't change physics

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that if the Sun was bright enough (which may have taken a nanosecond for the light to travel just like it takes a nanosecond for the light from a candle to travel), and we were gazing in that direction, we would see the Sun being turned on less a nanosecond. The bottom line: it would not take 8 minutes to see it. Obviously, the sun would have to be large enough to be seen, or else there would be no photons impinging on our retina for there to be a connection that would allow sight to occur.

Why one nanosecond and not seven nanoseconds? You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No you didn't, your best would have been to spend time with your grandchildren. I spent most of the last 10 years taking care of 2 of my grandchildren, now they are in school and I don't see them as much. You have been wasting 13+ years compiling and hawking your fathers joke. That time could have been much better spent doing almost anything else.

Don't go spouting off things you don't know. I have not been wasting my time. I know I'm being led in the right direction because that's how life works. You find things that don't work which leads you to things that do. I believe that with twitter and other social media, this knowledge will be spread quickly, but I have to have a strategy before I go about using these tools. I haven't even started.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Why one nanosecond and not seven nanoseconds? You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

No But, I said that the Sun in proportion to the Earth is the same as a candle in proportion to someone in the room that sees it being lit. Proportionally, it is exactly the same.