A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But they don't hold up to scrutiny at all. you know this, and that's why you refuse to discuss it. You aren't fooling anyone. Your account is obviously wrong, because it posits light coming from someplace where it could never have been located.

Unlike yourself, I have taken his work seriously and I do understand his reasoning as to why man's will is allegedly not free. That's why I am able to explain how and why his reasoning is fallacious. Again, you were the one to stop replying to me on this subject.

You are so wrapped up in your own adulation you have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to determinism. Your reasoning is lost, not Lessans. His reasoning was so beyond what you're capable of that it's no wonder you strike back in anger. Who am I to tell you you are wrong. You don't want to believe your professors were amateurs when it comes to this debate.

[But]

Hello!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so wrapped up in your own adulation you have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to determinism. Your reasoning is lost, not Lessans. His reasoning was so beyond what you're capable of that it's no wonder you strike back in anger. Who am I to tell you you are wrong. You don't want to believe your professors were amateurs when it comes to this debate.

More personal attacks and comments on my motivation. Why can't you actually address our objections?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the problem is not with the claim; it's with your ability to grasp the plausibiltiy of this claim. And I will not talk to you about this any further. I am tired of your attitude toward me. It stinks.

What exactly is your objection to my attitude? All I'm doing is asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions based upon what you have said. If I am failing to grasp something, then why can't you explain to me what I'm missing? You did say that there would be photons instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, right? And you did say that these photons came from the Sun, right?

So how am I wrong to point out that this is impossible due to the obvious fact that these photons could never have been located at the Sun? They can't have been located at the Sun after 12:00 because that has them going to rather than coming from the Sun. They can't have been located at the Sun at 12:00 because then you have the same photons in two places at once. And you can't have them located at the Sun before 12:00 because that would have the Sun ignited and emitting photons before the Sun was ignited and emitting photons.

Do you think you are being reasonable, scientific, or objective by refusing to address or even think about this obvious problem with your account? It's not like you don't have any options here beyond flat evasion and denial. Here are some possible solutions for you:-

(i) Insist that these photons did in fact come from the Sun, and explain to me when (relative to the Sun's ignition time of 12:00) they could have been located there.

(ii) Insist that the photons will be at the retina at 12:00, but accept that they could not have come from the Sun and instead offer an alternative explanation for where they came from.

(iii) Accept that Lessans was wrong about his newly ignited Sun example, but maintain that he was still correct about efferent vision, i.e. we can't see until there are photons at the retina which have had time to travel there from a light source, but that once photons are there at the retina we will see things instantly in real time. (Interestingly, this was previously your own official position for several months both here and at IIDB. It is only more recently that you have messed things up again by trying to defend his newly ignited Sun scenario.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What exactly is your objection to my attitude? All I'm doing is asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions based upon what you have said. If I am failing to grasp something, then why can't you explain to me what I'm missing? You did say that there would be photons instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, right? And you did say that these photons came from the Sun, right?

So how am I wrong to point out that this is impossible due to the obvious fact that these photons could never have been located at the Sun? They can't have been located at the Sun after 12:00 because that has them going to rather than coming from the Sun. They can't have been located at the Sun at 12:00 because then you have the same photons in two places at once. And you can't have them located at the Sun before 12:00 because that would have the Sun ignited and emitting photons before the Sun was ignited and emitting photons.

Do you think you are being reasonable, scientific, or objective by refusing to address or even think about this obvious problem with your account? It's not like you don't have any options here beyond flat evasion and denial. Here are some possible solutions for you:-

(i) Insist that these photons did in fact come from the Sun, and explain to me when (relative to the Sun's ignition time of 12:00) they could have been located there.

(ii) Insist that the photons will be at the retina at 12:00, but accept that they could not have come from the Sun and instead offer an alternative explanation for where they came from.

(iii) Accept that Lessans was wrong about his newly ignited Sun example, but maintain that he was still correct about efferent vision, i.e. we can't see until there are photons at the retina which have had time to travel there from a light source, but that once photons are there at the retina we will see things instantly in real time. (Interestingly, this was previously your own official position for several months both here and at IIDB. It is only more recently that you have messed things up again by trying to defend his newly ignited Sun scenario.)

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. You won't be satisfied until you win, and I'm sorry but I believe he is correct. Just because you think there's a contradiction doesn't mean there is one. If an object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, then the photons that reveal said object are already at the retina, which means the object is in optical range. If the Sun was not bright enough when it was first turned on, it would not be seen because it hasn't yet met the conditions of efferent vision. This is all I can tell you Spacemonkey. Take it or leave it, but there's nothing more that I can tell you.

Lastly, just because you don't accept his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" and "conscience" doesn't mean he is wrong. You are placing your knowledge and capabilities ahead of Lessans, and I'm sorry but you can't compete. That's the gods honest truth, not because I'm his daughter.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. You won't be satisfied until you win, and I'm sorry but I believe he is correct. Just because you think there's a contradiction doesn't mean there is one. If an object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, then the photons that reveal said object are already at the retina, which means the object is in optical range. If the Sun was not bright enough when it was first turned on, it would not be seen because it hasn't yet met the conditions of efferent vision. This is all I can tell you Spacemonkey. Take it or leave it, but there's nothing more that I can tell you.

Lastly, just because you don't accept his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" and "conscience" doesn't mean he is wrong. You are placing your knowledge and capabilities ahead of Lessans, and I'm sorry but you can't compete. That's the gods honest truth, not because I'm his daughter.

Once again, you aren't addressing a single thing I've said. Here's my post again. Try reading it and addressing what I am saying:-


What exactly is your objection to my attitude? All I'm doing is asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions based upon what you have said. If I am failing to grasp something, then why can't you explain to me what I'm missing? You did say that there would be photons instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, right? And you did say that these photons came from the Sun, right?

So how am I wrong to point out that this is impossible due to the obvious fact that these photons could never have been located at the Sun? They can't have been located at the Sun after 12:00 because that has them going to rather than coming from the Sun. They can't have been located at the Sun at 12:00 because then you have the same photons in two places at once. And you can't have them located at the Sun before 12:00 because that would have the Sun ignited and emitting photons before the Sun was ignited and emitting photons.

Do you think you are being reasonable, scientific, or objective by refusing to address or even think about this obvious problem with your account? It's not like you don't have any options here beyond flat evasion and denial. Here are some possible solutions for you:-

(i) Insist that these photons did in fact come from the Sun, and explain to me when (relative to the Sun's ignition time of 12:00) they could have been located there.

(ii) Insist that the photons will be at the retina at 12:00, but accept that they could not have come from the Sun and instead offer an alternative explanation for where they came from.

(iii) Accept that Lessans was wrong about his newly ignited Sun example, but maintain that he was still correct about efferent vision, i.e. we can't see until there are photons at the retina which have had time to travel there from a light source, but that once photons are there at the retina we will see things instantly in real time. (Interestingly, this was previously your own official position for several months both here and at IIDB. It is only more recently that you have messed things up again by trying to defend his newly ignited Sun scenario.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but this doesn't mean Lessans is wrong, which you are constantly trying to prove with moot stuff.

LOL, WTF? You'll break your neck shifting directions that fast

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not even go there with you LadyShea because you are doing what Spacemonkey is doing; not even considering the opposite conclusion that must be if the eyes are efferent. You have no clue.

I am asking a question regarding efferent vision. You are weaseling. Nothing changes, huh?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Take it or leave it, but there's nothing more that I can tell you.

Why is that all you can tell me? Is it because you don't have the faintest idea of how efferent vision could possibly work?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are placing your knowledge and capabilities ahead of Lessans, and I'm sorry but you can't compete.

That's the gods honest truth, not because I'm his daughter.

Just about everyone posting on this thread has demonstrated greater knowledge and capabilities that you or Lessans, however you have demonstrated wonderful capacity for imagination and invention of fantasy.

Just curious, are you now claiming to be God's daughter??

[Vivisectus]

Look - it is obvious that you do not want to address any of the flaws in the book, or even admit there are any. I can understand that: it is something dear to you, and if you had rather not dwell on the details then that is fine by me.

But you yourself have been unable to find any reason to assume conscience works the way he said it did, and the half dozen or so different (and sometimes polar opposite) positions on light and sight you came up with have been so nonsensical that it is hard to imagine it is anything but satire of some sort.

You decided to submit this book for discussion and analysis. But when people discuss and analyse it, you simply do not respect their views because you have already made up your mind that this book is correct in every respect. The only thing you are willing to accept is admiration: any criticism is automatically wrong. It is always caused by bias, malice, close-mindedness or plain old stupidity.

People react to that badly, and we cannot blame them for that. Your approach not only disparages their ability to think and reason, but it is also a very dishonest way of arguing a point. As long as you persist in doing it, you will never earn the respect of the people you converse with.

At the same time, you are expecting everyone to just take your word and your fathers word for it and wait for some future evidence to emerge. More: you expect people to experimentally try the things explained in the books, at considerable expense and perhaps even risk, to see if things works the way the book says.

Apart from the fact that both you and the book fail to provide people with a reason to believe the book is correct, how on earth is anyone going to give this book enough credence to spend all that time, effort and money on it if it's sole proponent shrilly denounces every last critic as biased, stupid or malicious?

Do you think people are blind to the way you go about arguing? Every time there is some evidence that conflicts with the book, you simply dismiss it. It is never good enough for you.

But you are happy enough to invoke possible future evidence that you say will come up and somehow supersede the current evidence, arguing that we should take what he says seriously because possibly something will emerge that will somehow deal with all the evidence to the contrary.

So anything against the book is required to exhibit levels certainty that we could not provide for the answer to the question "where do babies come from" or it will be utterly dismissed, and anything that makes the book slightly less unlikely than utterly impossible is presented as evidence that it is plausible.

It is so obvious that this is what you do that people argue the toss with you, for entertainment, just to see what you will say next. And sure enough: before long you are required to say outlandish things that make no sense, just to try to avoid having to admit that you are on the wrong track. Thus we arrive at your demands for "the kind of baa-ing or bleating that indicates recognition", expecting sheep to act like they are in some sort of cartoon. We arrive at "Mirror images at the retina which are the other side of the coin of the object", which you did not even understand. We get "astute observations" that we just have to accept as absolute truth on the basis of nothing whatsoever, and "the right-of-way principle", which is only a principle if it leads to something nice and more of a rough guideline if it does not.

It is your inflexibility that makes these outcomes so predictable, and so humorous. And since you use dishonest and disparaging methods to argue with people, no-one feels bad about pointing it out either.

If you are not able to entertain the possibility that the explanations in the book could possibly not be the best and final ones, and insist on using all these rather obvious stratagems to hold on to your ideas, then you are simply in the wrong place and in the wrong business.

And frankly, as far as you are concerned, what is there to discuss? Nothing can change your mind, add to your view regarding this book or change one iota of your firm belief that it is 100% correct in every respect. There is nothing anyone here can say that you think is worth anything, since no-one here shares your beliefs and nothing but complete agreement is ever correct or even worth considering in your view. What on earth is the point of arguing then?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. You won't be satisfied until you win, and I'm sorry but I believe he is correct. Just because you think there's a contradiction doesn't mean there is one. If an object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, then the photons that reveal said object are already at the retina, which means the object is in optical range. If the Sun was not bright enough when it was first turned on, it would not be seen because it hasn't yet met the conditions of efferent vision. This is all I can tell you Spacemonkey. Take it or leave it, but there's nothing more that I can tell you.

Lastly, just because you don't accept his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" and "conscience" doesn't mean he is wrong. You are placing your knowledge and capabilities ahead of Lessans, and I'm sorry but you can't compete. That's the gods honest truth, not because I'm his daughter.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Once again, you aren't addressing a single thing I've said. Here's my post again. Try reading it and addressing what I am saying:-


What exactly is your objection to my attitude? All I'm doing is asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions based upon what you have said. If I am failing to grasp something, then why can't you explain to me what I'm missing? You did say that there would be photons instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, right? And you did say that these photons came from the Sun, right?

So how am I wrong to point out that this is impossible due to the obvious fact that these photons could never have been located at the Sun? They can't have been located at the Sun after 12:00 because that has them going to rather than coming from the Sun. They can't have been located at the Sun at 12:00 because then you have the same photons in two places at once. And you can't have them located at the Sun before 12:00 because that would have the Sun ignited and emitting photons before the Sun was ignited and emitting photons.

Do you think you are being reasonable, scientific, or objective by refusing to address or even think about this obvious problem with your account? It's not like you don't have any options here beyond flat evasion and denial. Here are some possible solutions for you:-

I'm being very reasonable. You are totally stuck, which is why you don't get anything I'm trying to explain to you. There is no coming together in agreement or understanding. It's a lost cause.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm being very reasonable.

No you're not. I'm asking reasonable questions, and you're refusing to address them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are totally stuck, which is why you don't get anything I'm trying to explain to you.

You're refusing to explain anything to do with the things I'm actually stuck on. Because you're stuck on them too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no coming together in agreement or understanding. It's a lost cause.

So try something new. Like for once actually addressing the content of my post:-


What exactly is your objection to my attitude? All I'm doing is asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions based upon what you have said. If I am failing to grasp something, then why can't you explain to me what I'm missing? You did say that there would be photons instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, right? And you did say that these photons came from the Sun, right?

So how am I wrong to point out that this is impossible due to the obvious fact that these photons could never have been located at the Sun? They can't have been located at the Sun after 12:00 because that has them going to rather than coming from the Sun. They can't have been located at the Sun at 12:00 because then you have the same photons in two places at once. And you can't have them located at the Sun before 12:00 because that would have the Sun ignited and emitting photons before the Sun was ignited and emitting photons.

Do you think you are being reasonable, scientific, or objective by refusing to address or even think about this obvious problem with your account? It's not like you don't have any options here beyond flat evasion and denial. Here are some possible solutions for you:-

(i) Insist that these photons did in fact come from the Sun, and explain to me when (relative to the Sun's ignition time of 12:00) they could have been located there.

(ii) Insist that the photons will be at the retina at 12:00, but accept that they could not have come from the Sun and instead offer an alternative explanation for where they came from.

(iii) Accept that Lessans was wrong about his newly ignited Sun example, but maintain that he was still correct about efferent vision, i.e. we can't see until there are photons at the retina which have had time to travel there from a light source, but that once photons are there at the retina we will see things instantly in real time. (Interestingly, this was previously your own official position for several months both here and at IIDB. It is only more recently that you have messed things up again by trying to defend his newly ignited Sun scenario.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look - it is obvious that you do not want to address any of the flaws in the book, or even admit there are any. I can understand that: it is something dear to you, and if you had rather not dwell on the details then that is fine by me.

But you yourself have been unable to find any reason to assume conscience works the way he said it did, and the half dozen or so different (and sometimes polar opposite) positions on light and sight you came up with have been so nonsensical that it is hard to imagine it is anything but satire of some sort.

Vivisectus, I really do suggest you read over the first three chapters. His observations are so spot on it's ashame that you are going to dismiss this work and let it go without a second thought when I leave this thread.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You decided to submit this book for discussion and analysis. But when people discuss and analyse it, you simply do not respect their views because you have already made up your mind that this book is correct in every respect. The only thing you are willing to accept is admiration: any criticism is automatically wrong. It is always caused by bias, malice, close-mindedness or plain old stupidity.

No, that's not why I came to these forums. I came because I wanted to share a discovery. True discoveries don't need to be disputed. They need to be heard, and because of the type of venue this is (everyone's opinions are equal), you and others didn't like that you couldn't assert your opinion as being equal to Lessans. That's why you call him arrogant. It's very clear to me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

People react to that badly, and we cannot blame them for that. Your approach not only disparages their ability to think and reason, but it is also a very dishonest way of arguing a point. As long as you persist in doing it, you will never earn the respect of the people you converse with.

I am sorry if you don't like that your opinion doesn't count as much as his knowledge. That's why you won't read the book in earnest. The only way you will be happy is if I say I'm not sure if Lessans is right but I cannot lie; I believe he was right. I also realize that his claim about light and sight has turned people off from pursuing anything he might say. What ashame!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At the same time, you are expecting everyone to just take your word and your fathers word for it and wait for some future evidence to emerge. More: you expect people to experimentally try the things explained in the books, at considerable expense and perhaps even risk, to see if things works the way the book says.

No, his observations and his reasoning are epistemologically sound, but if you want more evidence, you'll have to wait until the new world is here. It's really not necessary to set up a simulation of the new world, but it could be done on a smaller scale.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Apart from the fact that both you and the book fail to provide people with a reason to believe the book is correct, how on earth is anyone going to give this book enough credence to spend all that time, effort and money on it if it's sole proponent shrilly denounces every last critic as biased, stupid or malicious?

The critics have been way too critical but part of the problem was my fault, for coming online (which I wouldn't have known until after the fact) and giving little excerpts of the book that can only cause more confusion and more questions. My father would have have understood why I attemped this as a means of getting the knowledge out there. But it backfired. How can this be a fair representation of what the book is about when the book has not been thoroughly studied, and don't you dare tell me that you, or anyone here, have thoroughly studied this work? It's no wonder people are being overly critical. And I'm not even talking about the eyes. That's a different ballgame altogether because it's already been established that the eyes are a sense organ, so it's that much harder to even open people's minds even a little bit.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you think people are blind to the way you go about arguing? Every time there is some evidence that conflicts with the book, you simply dismiss it. It is never good enough for you.

Because I don't like the way you have rewritten history Vivisectus. How many times do I have to tell you that my father was not arrogant. And I cannot stand the way people don't ask questions with an open mind, but rather they tell me that all this is is an assertion, as if it's nothing. That is why I have to go elsewhere even if it's to woos; people who won't rush to judgment and won't call me names; they will give this book a chance. It makes my blood boil when I hear people telling me, in so many words, that this book is valueless when it is anything but.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But you are happy enough to invoke possible future evidence that you say will come up and somehow supersede the current evidence, arguing that we should take what he says seriously [I]because possibly something will emerge that will somehow deal with all the evidence to the contrary.

So anything against the book is required to exhibit levels certainty that we could not provide for the answer to the question "where do babies come from" or it will be utterly dismissed, and anything that makes the book slightly less unlikely than utterly impossible is presented as evidence that it is plausible.

It is so obvious that this is what you do that people argue the toss with you, for entertainment, just to see what you will say next. And sure enough: before long you are required to say outlandish things that make no sense, just to try to avoid having to admit that you are on the wrong track. Thus we arrive at your demands for "the kind of baa-ing or bleating that indicates recognition", expecting sheep to act like they are in some sort of cartoon. We arrive at "Mirror images at the retina which are the other side of the coin of the object", which you did not even understand. We get "astute observations" that we just have to accept as absolute truth on the basis of nothing whatsoever, and "the right-of-way principle", which is only a principle if it leads to something nice and more of a rough guideline if it does not.

It is your inflexibility that makes these outcomes so predictable, and so humorous. And since you use dishonest and disparaging methods to argue with people, no-one feels bad about pointing it out either.

If you are not able to entertain the possibility that the explanations in the book could possibly not be the best and final ones, and insist on using all these rather obvious stratagems to hold on to your ideas, then you are simply in the wrong place and in the wrong business.

And frankly, as far as you are concerned, what is there to discuss? Nothing can change your mind, add to your view regarding this book or change one iota of your firm belief that it is 100% correct in every respect. There is nothing anyone here can say that you think is worth anything, since no-one here shares your beliefs and nothing but complete agreement is ever correct or even worth considering in your view. What on earth is the point of arguing then?

Let it go Vivisectus. This was never meant to be an argument. I came here to share what I know to be true, 100% true. Each one of his discoveries is valid and sound; he just observed certain things that others didn't. But he always said that someone in the world might be making the same discoveries because these observations are based on reality, and, as such, are part of the real world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True discoveries don't need to be disputed.

Is this perhaps the stupidest thing you've ever said?

No, wait. You once asked how we can take a photograph of the moon without using a flash.

Still, it's up there on the list.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is nothing anyone here can say that you think is worth anything...

She has fixed a few obvious typos and blatant errors based on what people here have said: my own 'contributions' (unattributed naturally) were to get the part about the sound from the jet plane arriving changed from 'nearer' to 'further away', and providing the correct answers for the alphabet and shopping puzzles.

If peacegirl could accept that Lessans' main argument is unaffected whether vision is efferent or afferent, then she could remove all the demonstrably scientifically wrong parts concerning light. The other errors in the book are hardly more remarkable than in many other works on philosophy or ethics, though the writing style is certainly different.

[LadyShea]

I wanted to share a discovery. True discoveries don't need to be disputed. They need to be heard

LOL and you dare to call it science. That is a statement of religious faith if I ever heard one.

[LadyShea]

That is why I have to go elsewhere even if it's to woos; people who won't rush to judgment and won't call me names; they will give this book a chance. It makes my blood boil when I hear people telling me, in so many words, that this book is valueless when it is anything but.

And why are you still here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this perhaps the stupidest thing you've ever said?

No, wait. You once asked how we can take a photograph of the moon without using a flash.

Still, it's up there on the list.

Edison was not given a chance to demonstrate HIS DISCOVERY until the last minute. If anything, disbelief, skepticism and PRIDE will destroy any chance for a truly geninuine discovery to be made known.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And why are you still here?

I told you why I'm here. I am waiting for my proof and in the meantime I'm here. But I'm not going to be here for long, so don't worry. I know this is not the right venue LadyShea, so whatever your motivations for asking me this question is moot.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Edison was not given a chance to demonstrate HIS DISCOVERY until the last minute. If anything, disbelief, skepticism and PRIDE will destroy any chance for a truly geninuine discovery to be made known.

What does this have to do with your moronic claim that true discoveries don't need to be disputed?

And where did the photons at the retina at 12:00 come from?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why I'm here. I am waiting for my proof and in the meantime I'm here.

Why?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Edison was not given a chance to demonstrate HIS DISCOVERY until the last minute. If anything, disbelief, skepticism and PRIDE will destroy any chance for a truly geninuine discovery to be made known.

Which discovery of Edison's are you talking about? What do you mean "last minute"?

He lit up a whole street amid much public interest less that 2 years after taking on the challenge of developing a bulb that was practical. He was only 33 at the time. So surely you don't mean the incandescent bulb.

Originally Posted by History.com

In the first public demonstration of his incandescent lightbulb, American inventor Thomas Alva Edison lights up a street in Menlo Park, New Jersey. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company ran special trains to Menlo Park on the day of the demonstration in response to public enthusiasm over the event.

Although the first incandescent lamp had been produced 40 years earlier, no inventor had been able to come up with a practical design until Edison embraced the challenge in the late 1870s. After countless tests, he developed a high-resistance carbon-thread filament that burned steadily for hours and an electric generator sophisticated enough to power a large lighting system.

Edison demonstrates incandescent light — History.com This Day in History — 12/31/1879

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why I'm here. I am waiting for my proof and in the meantime I'm here. But I'm not going to be here for long, so don't worry. I know this is not the right venue LadyShea, so whatever your motivations for asking me this question is moot.

This is the same answer you've given for 2 years. How long is "not long" in your mind?

[LadyShea]

From July 2011

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all so sure of yourselves that he is wrong and you are right that there's no point anymore. I've given it my best but I cannot continue to read the horrible comments about him and myself. This mob attack will only continue to get worse. This is not the venue that I can discuss this discovery in any serious way. Once people go on the attack, the tidal wave of resentment, vitriol, and downright hatred doesn't stop until I'm beaten to a pulp. And you actually think this is not group think at its worst? I'm not going to be the butt of your jokes anymore.