Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
He changed it and later told me that anyone who fell below their standard of living would be given the difference and not have to pay it back.
|
He told you? So now we have to rely on your memory of what your father said once? When the original text happens to contradict what you like?
What does it say about this in your book? And even if we assume this is not something you changed (which we have no way of confirming), how about the fact that he writes one thing in one book, and then the opposite in another?
Not just something subtly different. The opposite! Would the discoverer of mathematical relations, which are as undeniable as the fact that 1+1=2, make errors to such a degree that he ended up flatly contradicting himself? Without any comment about why he suddenly changed his mind to such an extent? Or is this something you changed because it suits you better? And how can we ever be certain?
These inconsistencies are really starting to add up now.
Again, probably better to just read the original. At least we are certain they are the authors own words. |
No inconsistencies are adding up except in your mind. It is true that early on he wrote some things that were changed later. We're talking about a 20 year gap. He did not change the core discovery. He just changed some of the extension of the principles. I remember him vividly sharing with me that money given to citizens who could not meet their standard of living would not have to pay it back. It took him a long time to work out the economic system so there were bound to be some changes. I, as the true steward, never forgot this conversation he had with me. Even when this discovery is acclaimed, certain things will be analyzed and tweaked in the extension. For example, it will be carefully analyzed to determine what is a true hurt. Citizens would want to know what these hurts are, as they would not desire to strike a first blow (an unprovoked hurt to someone) knowing they would never be blamed. You still have no conception of the two-sided equation which is why you are balking at everything. |
So your version of the book says money given to citizens does not have to be paid back, even though that contradicts the text we know was written by the author, based on something you claim your father once said?
And hey look! It happens to be pretty convenient for someone who relies on public money.
Deary dear. |
You are becoming more snarky toward me than is warranted Vivisectus. As I told you, the extension can be tweaked. The discovery is without flaw. You can't know this because you don't understand it. What is the discovery? You don't have a clue.