[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Weaseling. It is fundamentally dishonest and makes you look ridiculous.

Now you are accuse me of weaseling unfairly, which is a cop out because I am doing just as much research on vaccines as anyone else. Just because LadyShea wanted a yes or no answer does not mean I have to answer it immediately. If autism actually went up after thimerosal was removed completely, I would still have to know whether the children had been previously vaccinated before the mercury was removed and if this was used in the study as proof that thimerosal wasn't involved. I would not say one way or the other with confidence until I know whether the studies are reliable because what they are finding is that the studies themselves are biased.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are apparent contradictions if you are coming from the afferent perspective, but that alone doesn't mean his claim is wrong. It is true that one account of vision must be right and the other wrong. They both can't be right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are these apparent contradictions ones you can reconcile? Or are they irreconcilable contradictions? (And the contradictions we are talking about are not between the two accounts but within your own.)

I told you that they both can't be right, so one has to go. There is absolutely no contradiction within the efferent account because light can travel and still be a condition of sight, not a cause. The distance between the object and the eye in this account is not what matters. What matters is that the object is within optical range. It's YOU that is trying to make this account irreconcilable. Please don't get into this again. I won't answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with him being wrong because I don't believe his observations were wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you just finished telling me that you deliberately evade questions when you know that answering them will make Lessans look wrong.

I only evaded questions or weaseled because I believed correctly that people would use my inability to answer certain questions (e.g., regarding the structure of the eye) against Lessans inappropriately.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why do you keep coming back to this thread? If you don't think there's anything worth investigating, you should be doing other things.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are worth investigating.

How sad! You can think what you want and play this sick game by turning this into an issue about my incompetence, but it won't work because this discovery is genuine. I am going to ignore your posts if you keep it up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you still enjoy lego?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. We recently organized and held a national Lego show which drew in 20,000 visitors and raised over $15,000 for charity.

Wow, that's fantastic! Congratulations!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is your professorship coming?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not working on any professorship. I never was.

Let me rephrase: trying to get a job in your chosen field.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intuition does not come into play with this book. His knowledge was not based on intuition. It was based on astute observation and sound reasoning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it is faith rather than intuition which you constantly fall back on with the book.

You have no idea what you're talking about Spacemonkey. You have no idea how incredibly knowledgeable Lessans was, and how analytical, observant, well read and capable of making such a discovery he was. Until this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will miss out unfortunately. I'm not depending on you for anything, so it doesn't matter to me.