Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I DO NOT LIE LADYSHEA.
|
You're an
admitted liar, remember?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The addition of "other than light" in that particular place, completely changed the meaning of the sentence and negated the point he was making.
|
In peacegirl's mind, the addition of "other than light" was necessary to save her father from making an idiot of himself. Seymouron quite clearly believed that nothing whatsoever, light included, had to enter the eye for vision to occur. In the Hypothetical of Idiocy, Lessans gibbered that if God turned on the sun we would see it right away, but we would not see anything here on earth until the light arrived 8+ minutes later.
Thus, according to Lessans, we could see the sun without any light having reached us. When ol' Seymouron wrote that light was a "condition of sight," he evidently meant only that whatever we're looking at must be either luminous or illuminated before before our brains, looking out efferently through the window of the eyes, can see it.
That is, of course, moronic. The many discussions of cameras she's had across many different discussion boards apparently made
some limited impression on her. She understands, in an infantile sort of way, that cameras are mere light detectors; absent light making actual, physical contact with a camera, it can't work. Since peacegirl wants/needs cameras to mimic the mechanics of human vision, cameras must be "efferent" just light vision. Thus, if cameras are efferent and require the entry of light to work, so must eyes. The "reasoning" fails on every conceivable level, but it has become "undeniable" within the bonds of her itsy bitsy brain.
Thus did a theological crisis arise. Seymouron believed that nothing need enter the eye for vision to occur, and said so in the Sacred Text. peacegirl concluded that was wrong and thus had to deal with an error in her scripture. Being fundamentally dishonest, she simply plugged in the words "other than light" in what she though was an appropriate spot.
Trouble is, she's left a vast paper trail during ten years of Internet gibber-jabber. Thanks to that documentation, she got busted. Now she's concocted a big fat lie about how Lessans wrote
in a different book that light enters the eye. Disgraceful.
And the truly sad/funny part is that adding "other than light" did nothing to make Lessans appear even one iota less stupid or wrong. In fact, as you and V have pointed out, she only made matters worse.