[Vivisectus]

There is no MY addition Vivisectus. The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image. I don't have to use Lessans' words to express myself and be correct. If you want Lessans to explain to you in his own words, why not buy the book? This is not a meal ticket for me. This is to share knowledge that will change the world for the better.

Again, that was Shea.

The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image.

What the hell? Are you on something?

You all sound alike, so it's very easy to make that mistake.

It is called a quote system. It is not hard to use.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Though I would like to point out he did say nothing striked the retina. You just clumsily edited in a few words to make it seem like he didn't. How else do you explain the fact that earlier versions of the text do not contain the words "Except for light"?

He did not mention the word "retina"; Earlier version do contain "except for light". Look it up again. I'm not a liar Vivisectus, and I'm not trying to change the text as you believe.

Sure looks like you did. So there are different version of the holy texts huh? And between then and now you found one that included the words "exceot for light" even though it makes the sentence all mixed up?

You are correct, he used to word optic nerve in stead. He seems to have unaware of the existence of the retina.

I did, and it still makes no sense.

Well we have all seen your reading comprehension skills in action. I will try to make it simpler for you.

Yes there is. Light is not the same thing because it's bringing no stimuli from the external world. You still don't get it, do you?

But that was not how the original sentence ran. That was at least internally consistent, if factually inaccurate. The addition "except for light" makes the sentence completely nonsensical, as in the normal theory of sight light is the stimulus!

When you include the "except for light" part, the whole sentence becomes awkward and unclear, which suggests it was added on to the sentence later.

Nothing other than water made me wet is not comparable to nothing but light striked my optic nerve. You are not going to get away with this joke of an analogy.

It rather does: as I already pointed out, light is the stimulus in the normal theory of sight, so the addition of those words turns that sentence in a strange re-phrasing of the normal theory.

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That will help me to get this book printed, which is sorely needed.

Ermmm... you do know I could be a jerk and swindle you out of a 100 bucks right now? All I have to do is say "where is says other than light". That is where it was added in, if it was added in. Good grief you are so simple. No wonder you got swindled out of your life-savings already, getting a book printed that you need to charge 40 dollars for just to break even!

If you want to be shown when it was added in, then the latest source of the version without it that I am aware of is 2006, I think. So it must have been after that. Ask Shea, she found it.

I saw, and it was nothing but conjecture.

That should not be a problem for you! You accept that conscience works as the book described on no evidence, why not this?

I just did, and it was exactly what I intended to write.

Really? Well I did just mention your fabled reading comprehension skills. Let ius break it down into it's component parts and see what that brings us.

her hypothesis what shea said

will be proven to be speaks for itself I think?

as biased and factually inaccurate So, equally biased and factually inaccurate

as the very writing she's trying to condemn. which of course is the book.

So you said: what LS said will be proven to be equally biased and factually inaccurate as the book.

Or did you mean that both the book and LS's condemnation of the book are factually accurate and not biased? Surely they cannot both be accurate?

I did not call my father's writing biased. I called LadyShea's review biased and inaccurate. How can you compare the two and tell me that I just called my father's writing biased? You're all confused Vivisectus.

You rather did. You said "Her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased as the writing she is trying to condemn.

English may only be my second language, but I can read it you know.

You don't even know after accusing me of being biased because you thought LadyShea was perfect in her analysis, and now asking me what was factually inaccurate? Do you even know what you're saying Vivisectus? Sometimes I think you're talking in your sleep.

Which facts were inaccurate?