[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1142289]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have learned a lot, but I came here to teach as well. Unfortunately no one is listening because they've already made up their minds. I guarantee you very few people have read the first three chapters with the intention to understand what he's even saying. Their intention is only to criticize. This presents a major stumbling block because people cannot get out of their own way. They cannot allow themselves to agree with anything he writes or that would be an admission of defeat.

You started weaseling on day 1 with your evasions, insults, and mealy mouthing, so yes, some people made up their minds early on....however you have had over two years of open opportunity to change that around, but you haven't changed a single thing about how you speak to people or how you react to questions and valid criticism. The quotes below are all from your first 48 hours here

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not find any testable hypotheses in the first 2 chapters. It's very much a philosophical, and somewhat theological, piece, not a scientific one.

What kind of tests are you imagining could be done?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't mean for you to copy and paste it for people to read, but to clarify your answers to our questions or to highlight specific passages during discussion.

We want you to discuss the piece. Make an argument based on your reading and interpretation and answer questions. This is what they wanted at Philosophy forums too and ended up locking the thread.

The writing doesn't stand on its own as well as you seem to think it does (the dialog with imaginary persons is very distracting for one thing), so you may be called upon to present the info in another way, explain things etc.

Are you willing to do that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't seem to satisfy the people in here. They make it so difficult. I gave away the book for free. I put it online after 30 years of an author's hard work, and all you have to say is that two pages is too much for you to handle, and this thread will be locked? Well, so be it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability from your understanding of the principles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, I didn't say that at all. We don't lock threads here at

Please re-read what I said without all the defensiveness.

You had this discussion at another forum, the Philosophy forum, I linked to it upthread. They got frustrated at your unwillingness or inability to defend the principles from your own understanding, or to answer their questions in your own words and THEY locked the thread over it.

Here at we are also looking for that kind of discussion, though we won't lock the thread or ban you or whatever. Are you willing to discuss it and answer questions about it? If not, move on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).

I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.

The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.

What is it you feel I am missing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were very cordial in the beginning until you started telling me that this is a philosophical or theological work, not a scientific one. Right from the start you condemned him for offering nothing more than mere assertions, tautologies, modal fallacies, etc. How could I accept these ridiculous rebuttals without a fight? But, alas, I didn't have a fighting chance. Now that I know this group better, I understand why you all can't accept that these are spot on observations. His findings are not considered scientific in the technical sense, so therefore you all feel justified in throwing his whole work out as if it means nothing. It's really unfortunate not just for me, but for all of you.