A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 97

LadyShea · #**2401** 12-09-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his discovery.

Every time we point out a glaring error, poor wording, or bad argument you pull this out.

Molecules of light? Doesn't have anything to do with the validity
Plagiarism? Nothing to do with the validity
Insane lawsuits against the President? Nothing to do with the validity
Arrogance and imaginary conversants? Nothing to do with the validity

peacegirl · #**2402** 12-09-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You posted this in response to davidm and Ceptimus, peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even though this is a triviality, where was he wrong?

The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two
thousand years to convince men that this fact is true.

I did not make a mistake. The above is your response. Here is a link Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am condemning you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Condemning me is the same thing as condemning Lessans. For what reason are you playing this game other than to be right at all costs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans isn't the one debating here dishonestly, YOU are. How am I condemning him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I am representing him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are representing him, but your words and actions remain your own. I am only talking about your words and your actions.

My words are honest. You are trying to turn me into a liar. For what reason, I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not playing games, I am pointing out your weasels. This is why people get frustrated with you. This is why people think you're mentally ill. This is why people call you a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling at all.

Are you denying that you posted that Morrison quote? I gave you the link to your post. Are you denying that you failed to attribute it to Morrison?

Yes. I attributed this quote to Morrison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, there's the link. Are you denying that you used italics, as you do with quotes from Lessans?

No, I did use italics except at the end of Richard Milton's quote, which I later corrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you denying that you posted it in direct response to davidm's pointing out that Lessans statement about the dogmatically held belief in the flat Earth by early humans was factually incorrect since the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical?

No, I'm not denying that I disagree with David's account that early humans (not the Greeks) believed in a flat earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What exactly are you denying you did?

Nothing of import, that's for sure. You just like to make a mountains out of molehills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Should I call you a liar or mentally ill each time you make a blunder in trying and accuse me of things I'm not guilty of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've called me angry, vicious, the product of a distraught childhood, a victim of quackery, and nasty...why not a liar or mentally ill?

So now you're the victim? This is too funny for words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have admitted to any mistakes I've made that were shown to be mistakes. I have not lied, nor have I accused you of something you didn't do.

And I'm an evil person because I am a liar with no redeeming qualities. Wooooooo.

LadyShea · #**2403** 12-09-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I attributed this quote to Morrison.
No, I did use italics except at the end of Richard Milton's quote, which I later corrected.

OMG you are crazy or lying. Which is it?

Click this link to your post Your post with the excerpt

Tell me where in THAT POST you attributed your quoted text to Morrison? You didn't attribute or cite it at all, not even page number. You just posted it to make it look like Lessans said it in italics...that was a dishonest weasel.

Are you srsly denying these two obvious facts that I have proven?

peacegirl · #**2404** 12-09-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his discovery.

Every time we point out a glaring error, poor wording, or bad argument you pull this out.

Molecules of light? Doesn't have anything to do with the validity
Plagiarism? Nothing to do with the validity
Insane lawsuits against the President? Nothing to do with the validity
Arrogance and imaginary conversants? Nothing to do with the validity

Using the word "molecules" instead of "photons" did not change the point he was making and it didn't make it wrong. But you can't look beyond that. Oh well.

If you want to call those few comments I included plagiarism, which I don't think it is, blame it on me, not Lessans. I've said this countless times.

That insane Lawsuit you will forever hold against him. I can't change that.

Arrogance was not who he was. You're making up lies LadyShea.

Dialogue (whether imaginary or not) is a writing style. I chose this as a way to help people understand this work. Funny how good intentions can turn into something else entirely.

peacegirl · #**2405** 12-09-2011, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I attributed this quote to Morrison.
No, I did use italics except at the end of Richard Milton's quote, which I later corrected.

OMG you are crazy or lying. Which is it?

Click this link to your post Your post with the excerpt

Tell me where in THAT POST you attributed your quoted text to Morrison? You didn't attribute or cite it at all, not even page number. You just posted it to make it look like Lessans said it in italics...that was a dishonest weasel.

Are you srsly denying these two obvious facts that I have proven?

I was thinking of the Richard Milton quote. That doesn't make me a liar or crazy. You're right, the beginning of Chapter One had no quotes. I don't think that excerpt was incorrect, as Ceptimus pointed out. What is your problem LadyShea? What are you trying to prove? What's your point?

LadyShea · #**2406** 12-09-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Should I call you a liar or mentally ill each time you make a blunder in trying and accuse me of things I'm not guilty of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've called me angry, vicious, the product of a distraught childhood, a victim of quackery, and nasty...why not a liar or mentally ill?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you're the victim? This is too funny for words.

Where did I say I am a victim? I am just reminding you of your own words. You have called me those things, none of which accurately describe me, so why not call me crazy or a liar as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have admitted to any mistakes I've made that were shown to be mistakes. I have not lied, nor have I accused you of something you didn't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm an evil person because I am a liar with no redeeming qualities. Wooooooo.

Where did I say that you are evil or have no redeeming qualities?

Just another one of your favorite weasels, histrionics.

LadyShea · #**2407** 12-09-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I attributed this quote to Morrison.
No, I did use italics except at the end of Richard Milton's quote, which I later corrected.

OMG you are crazy or lying. Which is it?

Click this link to your post Your post with the excerpt

Tell me where in THAT POST you attributed your quoted text to Morrison? You didn't attribute or cite it at all, not even page number. You just posted it to make it look like Lessans said it in italics...that was a dishonest weasel.

Are you srsly denying these two obvious facts that I have proven?

What is your problem LadyShea? What are you trying to prove, that Lessans couldn't be right? What's your point?

OMG, one more time. I am showing that you are guilty of dishonest argumentation in these threads. You then throw a histrionic shitfit when you are called on it, as davidm called you on dishonesty regarding this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think that excerpt was incorrect, as Ceptimus pointed out

Then why did you post Milton's sentence about the Greeks at all, if not to try to make it appear as if Lessans said it?

peacegirl · #**2408** 12-09-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, all of these are correct, but real time vision is not.

That is right. Real-time vision is not correct. The above things could not be true, as well as real time vision.

You've finally admitted that Lessans was wrong. No further need to continue.

That was an error. I corrected it.

peacegirl · #**2409** 12-09-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did you abandon the first thread, peacegirl, except you couldn't answer Dragar's list of evidences that flatly contradict real time seeing?

I saw no proof that actually negates real time vision. Objects have to be in range to be seen. They can't be seen if they're out of range, no matter how much light they are reflecting. I'm not getting into this again.

peacegirl · #**2410** 12-09-2011, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here, just so you don't miss them, I'll make them nice and big and bold:

But now you seem to think there is no evidence contradicting your claims?

What about our other thread, where we pointed out that facts such as:

1) The Moons of Jupiter
2) Stellar aberration
3) Gravitational lensing
4) Blue objects being invisible when bathed only in red light
Or as a generalisation of 1)
5) The absolute position of distant objects not matching their apparent position on the sky

Or the theories of
6) Special Relativity
7) General Relativity
8) Quantum Field Theory

and applications of these such as
9) GPS satellites
10) Transistors

or even something as simple as
11) Landing a rocket on a distant planet

or even
12) Basic optical predictions matching the behaviour of cameras and eyesight

all contradict Lessans claims about vision.

Your response to all of these contradictions?

You don't have an explanation, but you're sure there is one, as you are sure Lessans is right.

:popcorn:

David, all of these are correct, but this does not make real time vision follow. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Does not make real time vision follow what? What are you trying to say?

And yes, all of those things listed exclude the possibility that we see in real time.

No they don't LadyShea.

Yes, they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The speed of light is alive and well as well as the technologies that are based on this fact. Real time vision is not. Let's not go there again.

Real time vision is not what?

Is not based on the speed of light.

davidm · #**2411** 12-09-2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant to say that real time vision doesn't automatically follow. My mistake.

Erm, right. It does not automatically follow. In fact, it automatically follows that real-time seeing is false, from the moons of Jupiter example by itself.

Vivisectus · #**2412** 12-09-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his discovery.

Every time we point out a glaring error, poor wording, or bad argument you pull this out.

Molecules of light? Doesn't have anything to do with the validity
Plagiarism? Nothing to do with the validity
Insane lawsuits against the President? Nothing to do with the validity
Arrogance and imaginary conversants? Nothing to do with the validity

Using the word "molecules" instead of "photons" did not change the point he was making and it didn't make it wrong. But you can't look beyond that. Oh well.

If you want to call those few comments I included plagiarism, which I don't think it is, blame it on me, not Lessans. I've said this countless times.

That insane Lawsuit you will forever hold against him. I can't change that.

Arrogance was not who he was. You're making up lies LadyShea.

Dialogue (whether imaginary or not) is a writing style. I chose this as a way to help people understand this work. Funny how good intentions can turn into something else entirely.

Quote:

Using the word "molecules" instead of "photons" did not change the point he was making and it didn't make it wrong. But you can't look beyond that. Oh well.

Actually, it shows a very basic ignorance about light, even though he was making huge claims about it. At the very least he could have indicated a basic understanding of what he was wading into.

Quote:

That insane Lawsuit you will forever hold against him. I can't change that.

You yourself realize it was insane. And yet you ask us to take his word on human conscience? There is some serious compartmentalization going on here.

Quote:

Arrogance was not who he was. You're making up lies LadyShea.

I am sure he was not an arrogant person to you. His writing, however, is pompous and self-important. I defy you to find a single reader who is not you who does not think so.

davidm · #**2413** 12-09-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here, just so you don't miss them, I'll make them nice and big and bold:

But now you seem to think there is no evidence contradicting your claims?

What about our other thread, where we pointed out that facts such as:

1) The Moons of Jupiter
2) Stellar aberration
3) Gravitational lensing
4) Blue objects being invisible when bathed only in red light
Or as a generalisation of 1)
5) The absolute position of distant objects not matching their apparent position on the sky

Or the theories of
6) Special Relativity
7) General Relativity
8) Quantum Field Theory

and applications of these such as
9) GPS satellites
10) Transistors

or even something as simple as
11) Landing a rocket on a distant planet

or even
12) Basic optical predictions matching the behaviour of cameras and eyesight

all contradict Lessans claims about vision.

Your response to all of these contradictions?

You don't have an explanation, but you're sure there is one, as you are sure Lessans is right.

:popcorn:

David, all of these are correct, but this does not make real time vision follow. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Does not make real time vision follow what? What are you trying to say?

And yes, all of those things listed exclude the possibility that we see in real time.

No they don't LadyShea. The speed of light is alive and well as well as the technologies that are based on this fact. Real time vision is not. Let's not go there again.

No, of course you don't want to go there again, because going there will prove all over again that Lessans was wrong. And you know this. You really are a dishonest turd.

Vivisectus · #**2414** 12-09-2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did you abandon the first thread, peacegirl, except you couldn't answer Dragar's list of evidences that flatly contradict real time seeing?

I saw no proof that actually negates real time vision. Objects have to be in range to be seen. They can't be seen if they're out of range, no matter how much light they are reflecting. I'm not getting into this again.

Please describe what determines what is "in range" without making it circular and saying that "it can be seen".

davidm · #**2415** 12-09-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David can't stand that Lessans could be correct because that would destroy his sacred worldview.

The only one with a sacred world view here is you. And, as I noted long ago, there was and is a thread on findings that neutrinos in a certain experiment might have exceeded light speed. If true, this finding will lead to a revolution in physics. Far from resisting it, I and others enthusiastically began a discussion of the implications. This is a direct rebuff to your slander against myself and others, that we are "protecting a world view." It is YOU who are protecting a (false) world view, because to admit what has already been demonstrated -- that Lessans was wrong -- to to expose him, and you, as wrong. Of course you will resist that to your dying day.

davidm · #**2416** 12-09-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did you abandon the first thread, peacegirl, except you couldn't answer Dragar's list of evidences that flatly contradict real time seeing?

I saw no proof that actually negates real time vision. Objects have to be in range to be seen. They can't be seen if they're out of range, no matter how much light they are reflecting. I'm not getting into this again.

No, course you're not getting into it again, because your claims are wrong, and have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. Your idiot babble about objects having to be in "range" to be seen is wrong, and has repeatedly been shown to be wrong. You were walked through your errors with great care by a number of interlocutors, and here you are spitting on those people with your repeated false assertions. You are contemptible.

thedoc · #**2417** 12-09-2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does not make real time vision follow what? What are you trying to say?
And yes, all of those things listed exclude the possibility that we see in real time.

No they don't LadyShea.

Yes, they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The speed of light is alive and well as well as the technologies that are based on this fact. Real time vision is not. Let's not go there again.

Real time vision is not what?

Is not based on the speed of light.

All vision, optics, anythink that involves light, is based on the speed of light. If real time vision requires light as a condition of sight, it is based on and limited by, the speed of light.

peacegirl · #**2418** 12-09-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Should I call you a liar or mentally ill each time you make a blunder in trying and accuse me of things I'm not guilty of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've called me angry, vicious, the product of a distraught childhood, a victim of quackery, and nasty...why not a liar or mentally ill?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you're the victim? This is too funny for words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I say I am a victim? I am just reminding you of your own words. You have called me those things, none of which accurately describe me, so why not call me crazy or a liar as well?

I believe you're exaggerating. You want to paint a picture of me as a liar in order to discredit anything I have to say. Let's be honest. You did that from the beginning by using "your father" instead of "Lessans" to further discredit me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have admitted to any mistakes I've made that were shown to be mistakes. I have not lied, nor have I accused you of something you didn't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm an evil person because I am a liar with no redeeming qualities. Wooooooo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I say that you are evil or have no redeeming qualities?

Just another one of your favorite weasels, histrionics.

That's another one of your games; to make you the victim and me the bad guy. I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove.

peacegirl · #**2419** 12-09-2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did you abandon the first thread, peacegirl, except you couldn't answer Dragar's list of evidences that flatly contradict real time seeing?

I saw no proof that actually negates real time vision. Objects have to be in range to be seen. They can't be seen if they're out of range, no matter how much light they are reflecting. I'm not getting into this again.

Please describe what determines what is "in range" without making it circular and saying that "it can be seen".

In order for a photograph to be captured on film (regardless of the resolution), the actual object has to be within range of the lens. Let's get off this subject please.

peacegirl · #**2420** 12-09-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his discovery.

Every time we point out a glaring error, poor wording, or bad argument you pull this out.

Molecules of light? Doesn't have anything to do with the validity
Plagiarism? Nothing to do with the validity
Insane lawsuits against the President? Nothing to do with the validity
Arrogance and imaginary conversants? Nothing to do with the validity

Using the word "molecules" instead of "photons" did not change the point he was making and it didn't make it wrong. But you can't look beyond that. Oh well.

If you want to call those few comments I included plagiarism, which I don't think it is, blame it on me, not Lessans. I've said this countless times.

That insane Lawsuit you will forever hold against him. I can't change that.

Arrogance was not who he was. You're making up lies LadyShea.

Dialogue (whether imaginary or not) is a writing style. I chose this as a way to help people understand this work. Funny how good intentions can turn into something else entirely.

Quote:

Using the word "molecules" instead of "photons" did not change the point he was making and it didn't make it wrong. But you can't look beyond that. Oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, it shows a very basic ignorance about light, even though he was making huge claims about it. At the very least he could have indicated a basic understanding of what he was wading into.

He knew what he was talking about.

Quote:

That insane Lawsuit you will forever hold against him. I can't change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You yourself realize it was insane. And yet you ask us to take his word on human conscience? There is some serious compartmentalization going on here.

You didn't know anything about this man, yet you judge him so harshly.

Quote:

Arrogance was not who he was. You're making up lies LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am sure he was not an arrogant person to you. His writing, however, is pompous and self-important. I defy you to find a single reader who is not you who does not think so.

I am not interested in this. I want to discuss the discovery (not necessarily with you), or I'm outta here.

peacegirl · #**2421** 12-09-2011, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I attributed this quote to Morrison.
No, I did use italics except at the end of Richard Milton's quote, which I later corrected.

OMG you are crazy or lying. Which is it?

Click this link to your post Your post with the excerpt

Tell me where in THAT POST you attributed your quoted text to Morrison? You didn't attribute or cite it at all, not even page number. You just posted it to make it look like Lessans said it in italics...that was a dishonest weasel.

Are you srsly denying these two obvious facts that I have proven?

What is your problem LadyShea? What are you trying to prove, that Lessans couldn't be right? What's your point?

OMG, one more time. I am showing that you are guilty of dishonest argumentation in these threads. You then throw a histrionic shitfit when you are called on it, as davidm called you on dishonesty regarding this issue.

What dishonesty? This whole thing started because of David trying to prove that I learned about the early Greeks from people in this thread. I said I didn't. Then it went into a total fiasco, just like it did with Stephen. It's all in an effort to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think that excerpt was incorrect, as Ceptimus pointed out

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you post Milton's sentence about the Greeks at all, if not to try to make it appear as if Lessans said it?

I thought I was being accused of not quoting Morrison correctly, but I don't see any mistakes there. I admitted that I left out a quotation mark at the end of the Richard Milton quote, but I fixed it. What's the problem now?

LadyShea · #**2422** 12-09-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you're the victim? This is too funny for words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I say I am a victim? I am just reminding you of your own words. You have called me those things, none of which accurately describe me, so why not call me crazy or a liar as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe you're exaggerating.

Exaggerating what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You want to paint a picture of me as a liar in order to discredit anything I have to say.

No, I really don't want to paint a picture of you or discredit you as anything. I am calling it as I see it, and have been from day one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's be honest.

I am being honest. Are you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did that from the beginning by using "your father" instead of "Lessans" to further discredit me.

Now who's exaggerating? You dishonestly failed to disclose the close relationship between you and "the author", a relationship which was obvious to me from the start and so I asked about it. You feared it would make you look nonobjective, well the fact is you ARE nonobjective when it comes to this work.

Let's be honest, peacegirl. If you weren't Lessans daughter, you would have no use for this book either. You think you are objective, but that's simply not possible given that you grew up listening to this stuff, and even felt it would be "disrespectful" to question him about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I say that you are evil or have no redeeming qualities?

Just another one of your favorite weasels, histrionics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's another one of your games; to make you the victim and me the bad guy. I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove.

Nope, I haven't done that.

peacegirl · #**2423** 12-09-2011, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm responded to the Lessans quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy, shit, it's wrong from the first paragraph. :lol:

The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was round! They even measured the diameter of the earth to within a breathtaking degree of accuracy.

:lol:

Ceptimus responded to davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The book only says, 'Long ago ...' and 'the first astronomer ...' Presumably this was a long time before the Ancient Greeks, so that part isn't necessarily wrong.

You counter with a quote from the book, but failed to mention it was MORRISON who said it rather than Lessans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even though this is a triviality, where was he wrong?

The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two
thousand years to convince men that this fact is true.

I need to clarify something. Yes, Morrison said the above, but that wasn't the part that was actually being debated. It was the beginning of Chapter One which David was disputing, and these were Lessans' words, not Morrisons.

Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat
because he could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in
space. It became a dogma, such a fixed idea that when the
first astronomer, in attempting to explain the reason why
darkness came over the sun in the middle of the day, was denied an
opportunity to present his findings because his discovery called into
question this sacred belief.

peacegirl · #**2424** 12-09-2011, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you're the victim? This is too funny for words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I say I am a victim? I am just reminding you of your own words. You have called me those things, none of which accurately describe me, so why not call me crazy or a liar as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe you're exaggerating.

Exaggerating what?

That I called you all those things in the way you are describing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You want to paint a picture of me as a liar in order to discredit anything I have to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I really don't want to paint a picture of you or discredit you as anything. I am calling it as I see it, and have been from day one.

You think you are being objective, but the things you're calling me out on have nothing to do with the subject matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's be honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am being honest. Are you?

I think you have an agenda. Yes, I'm being as honest as I can. If I accidentally make a mistake in quoting someone, it's not the end of the world. Once again, you know how to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did that from the beginning by using "your father" instead of "Lessans" to further discredit me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now who's exaggerating?

This is not an exaggeration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You dishonestly failed to disclose the close relationship between you and "the author", a relationship which was obvious to me from the start and so I asked about it. You feared it would make you look nonobjective, well the fact is you ARE nonobjective when it comes to this work.

You are nonobjective in thinking that I'm nonobjective. That's exactly why I didn't disclose my relationship. It's still a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's be honest, peacegirl. If you weren't Lessans daughter, you would have no use for this book either. You think you are objective, but that's simply not possible given that you grew up listening to this stuff, and even felt it would be "disrespectful" to question him about it.

Well that's totally inaccurate because I questioned him incessantly throughout my childhood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I say that you are evil or have no redeeming qualities?

Just another one of your favorite weasels, histrionics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's another one of your games; to make you the victim and me the bad guy. I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, I haven't done that.

You are searching for ways to discredit me, but I still don't know why.

Spacemonkey · #**2425** 12-09-2011, 09:53 PM

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?