Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Made up passages used to support your own premises are "unimportant details". LOL, that's a new definition
|
Indeed! It's kinda like ol' Seymour's fraudulent use of "scientific" as a synonym for "undeniable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nope, my train of thought is "he's a fucking liar, why should anything he said be trusted let alone assumed to be true?"
|
That right there the whole problem with the proven fact that Seymour was a lying sack of shit and entrails. Massive swaths of his imbecilic "book" consist of nothing but self-aggrandizing pontification. We're asked to
accept on faith that the self-aggrandizing pontification is reliable because Seymour based it on actual observations. peacegirl tells us that these observations -- none of which he actually shared -- are reliable because Seymour was an extraordinarily astute observer. Again, the latter "fact" is something we must accept on faith.
In other words, the viability of the "book" in the eyes of outside observers such as ourselves depends
entirely on trusting the credibility of Lessans and his one and only acolyte. But Lessans is not credible, and neither is peacegirl. They've lied again and again. Nothing they say is even remotely trustworthy. Nothing.