A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

While it's entirely possible that you have a pathological inability to see it, this doesn't change the fact that you lie -- a lot. Maybe more to the point, there's considerable evidence that you're incapable of distinguishing between what you want to be true and what is true: in your mind, what you want to be true is true.

That is a true statement. What I want to be true IS true. There is no distinguishing between the two in this case. Have you ever thought that you are the one that is incapable of distinguishing between what you want to be true, and what may be actually true? Huh?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This doesn't change the fact that you frequently make false claims. Frequently. And this is easily demonstrated, as has been done many times, by many different posters.

So it's possible that you aren't consciously lying. That doesn't change the fact that you're amazingly hypocritical and dishonest. Perhaps pathologically so.

Absolutely false. I am not a pathological liar, nor am I lying unconsciously. I answered the questions as best I could, given that I never took a course in physics. This has absolutely nothing to do with his observation which led him to this finding indirectly. Further, I do not make false claims. The only claims I have made are the claims that are in this book, and I stand by them.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not a pathological liar, nor am I lying unconsciously.

So it's deliberate on your part, then ...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a true statement. What I want to be true IS true. There is no distinguishing between the two in this case. Have you ever thought that you are the one that is incapable of distinguishing between what you want to be true, and what may be actually true? Huh?

You just admitted that you are the one who cannot make that distinction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely false. I am not a pathological liar, nor am I lying unconsciously. I answered the questions as best I could...

That's a lie right there. You've constantly weaseled, evaded, and ignored questions instead of answering them as best as you could.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Further, I do not make false claims. The only claims I have made are the claims that are in this book...

That's a false claim right there. You've repeatedly made all sorts of claims about light and photons that are not in the book. Lessans never said anything about photons instantly at the retina, about mirror image photons, about non-absorbed photons not traveling, about light running out of energy and reverting to full spectrum, or about the Sun warming up. These are all claims YOU have made which are NOT in the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and I stand by them.

You made the claim that the photons instantly at the retina will be there at 12:02 and were at the Sun two minutes before at 12:00. Was that claim in the book? Do you stand by that claim? Do you acknowledge that you even made that claim?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Further, I do not make false claims. The only claims I have made are the claims that are in this book, and I stand by them.

Lessans never made most of the claims about light that you have. Mirror images, photons at the retina/camera film without a mechanism for getting there, lenses that focus out, seeing "actual" stars/mass/plasma rather than the light they emit, optical range, field of view, non-traveling non-absorbed light (because you avoid the word reflected for reasons unknown), light "becoming" white light...those are all you.

xposted with Spacemonkey

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe I'm a liar, then I agree you shouldn't trust me.

That's right, and I believe you're a liar because you are in fact a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bottom line: I'm not a liar.

Sure you are. When you intentionally wrote that you never claimed that cameras and eyes work differently, knowing the statement was false, you lied. When you intentionally tell people that you weren't related to Lessans and that he was just a friend of the family, knowing the statement was false, you lie. Etc., etc., etc. Obviously, that sort of thing isn't as bad as your taking taxpayer money under false pretenses, but it's undeniably lying.

So then, you're a person who tells lies. Do you know the word for a person who tells lies?

show spoiler

Three Dog Night - Liar - YouTube

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled here and there, changed the goalposts unintentionally, and even gotten histrionic out of sheer frustration

Oh, you've done all that and then some. You've also flat-out lied. Repeatedly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am entitled to express my worldview in an open forum.

Of course. On this forum, you're even entitled to lie. You've taken full advantage of that by telling lies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't like it, leave.

Sorry, dingleberry, but I'm not going anywhere and you can't do a goddamn thing about it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I want to be true IS true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only claims I have made are the claims that are in this book...

Peacegirl, can you see how your second claim here shows how the falsity of the first has led you astray?

You want it to be true that you've only made claims which are from the book. But that isn't true. And you know it isn't true. You just want it to be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh come on. If that kind of behaviour was insane then quite a lot of religious people would classify.

Hey, watch it, I'm right here, ya' know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So it's deliberate on your part, then ...

It's neither, so please get this out of your head.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, can you see how your second claim here shows how the falsity of the first has led you astray?

You want it to be true that you've only made claims which are from the book. But that isn't true. And you know it isn't true. You just want it to be.

This is getting ridiculous. The only claims that I stand by are the claims Lessans made, which is the purpose of this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's right, and I believe you're a liar because you are in fact a liar.

You're still stuck on that? Oh my goodness, you will hold this against him forever because you have nothing else. And yes, I was afraid to tell people he was my father. I thought people would use it against me, which they have done, just as I predicted. Now that the cat is out of the bag so I have to deal with it.

I haven't heard that song in ages. I have to give it to you: perfect song for the occasion. But it's the wrong person you're calling a liar.

Just like the song says: LIAR!

Of course. On this forum, you're even entitled to lie. You've taken full advantage of that by telling lies.

Sorry, dingleberry, but I'm not going anywhere and you can't do a goddamn thing about it.

Dingleberry? You are very irritating, you know that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never made most of the claims about light that you have. Mirror images, photons at the retina/camera film without a mechanism for getting there, lenses that focus out, seeing "actual" stars/mass/plasma rather than the light they emit, optical range, field of view, non-traveling non-absorbed light (because you avoid the word reflected for reasons unknown), light "becoming" white light...those are all you.

xposted with Spacemonkey

That's why I am not discussing the eyes anymore. How dare people attack me after I have tried so hard to explain this concept. Granted, I fell short, but I did not lie or purposely deceive anyone and, more importantly, my lack of persuasive power in no way disproves Lessans' claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I am not discussing the eyes anymore. How dare people attack me after I have tried so hard to explain this concept. Granted, I fell short, but I did not lie or purposely deceive anyone and, more importantly, my lack of persuasive power in no way disproves Lessans' claims.

It really didn't appear that you were trying at all.

While your posts were not the only thing, Lessans own statements in the book were sufficient to disprove his claims, your claims just added to the disproof.

How does the brain project words out through the eyes when there are no efferent nerves in the eye itself?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dingleberry? You are very irritating, you know that?

Peacegirl, can you define a 'Dingleberry' or is that another word you know nothing about?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is getting ridiculous. The only claims that I stand by are the claims Lessans made, which is the purpose of this thread.

You didn't say that the claims in the book were the only ones you stood by. You said they were the only ones you made. You were either lying or you mistakenly said what you wanted to be true instead of what is actually true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I am not discussing the eyes anymore. How dare people attack me after I have tried so hard to explain this concept. Granted, I fell short, but I did not lie or purposely deceive anyone and, more importantly, my lack of persuasive power in no way disproves Lessans' claims.

You haven't tried hard to explain it at all. You've deliberately and purposefully evaded any discussion at all of the points where your account falls apart. The impossibility of explaining where the instantly present photons at the retina came from or how they got there very much disproves Lessans' claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely false. I am not a pathological liar.

So you are just an ordinary liar, or habitual?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, now that you've admitted to weaseling, are you going to make any effort to stop doing it?

So I take it your answer to the above question is No?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So I take it your answer to the above question is No?

Can a Leopard change it's stripes, or a Tiger it's spots? ? ??

I think Peacegirl's thinking is getting to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It really didn't appear that you were trying at all.

While your posts were not the only thing, Lessans own statements in the book were sufficient to disprove his claims, your claims just added to the disproof.

How does the brain project words out through the eyes when there are no efferent nerves in the eye itself?

Your statements have zero impact. You can keep saying that the explanation in the book is insufficient proof, but is it really? Maybe not in your mind because his description of what he believed was going on was not done using the scientific method, but this does not in and of itself negate the accuracy of what he observed. You can balk all you want; you can say this is faith based all you want; you can laugh all you want; you can use this thread as entertainment all you want; you can call me a liar all you want; but this does not change the fact that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8; or that he was wrong in his observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So I take it your answer to the above question is No?

Yes, I'm going to stop doing it because I'm finished talking about the eyes. It was a mistake to even try.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can keep saying that the explanation in the book is insufficient proof, but is it really?

Yes, it really is.

Why are you still weaseling?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I'm going to stop doing it because I'm finished talking about the eyes. It was a mistake to even try.

Changing to another subject won't end your weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't tried hard to explain it at all. You've deliberately and purposefully evaded any discussion at all of the points where your account falls apart. The impossibility of explaining where the instantly present photons at the retina came from or how they got there very much disproves Lessans' claims.

You are putting yourself as some kind of expert on this topic, and if it doesn't seem to make sense to you, then he must be wrong. I believe it is YOU who refuses to look at this as he looked at it. You refuse because you're stubborn and you can't seem to see how this model works without violating physics. That does not mean this model actually does cause a violation of the laws of physics or light. So believe what you want Spacemonkey; I did the best I could but it will never make sense to you coming from the position you're coming from (or the idea that photons have to travel through space/time in order for there to be no violation. I believe you are misguided here, but there is no way I can prove to you why there is no contradiction. That's why only time will tell if there is something to his claim. This thread has gotten extremely redundant because there's nothing more I can offer you, and it's hurting Lessans rather than helping him at this point.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are putting yourself as some kind of expert on this topic, and if it doesn't seem to make sense to you, then he must be wrong. I believe it is YOU who refuses to look at this as he looked at it. You refuse because you're stubborn and you can't seem to see how this model works without violating physics. That does not mean this model does violate the laws of physics or light. So believe what you want Spacemonkey; I did the best I could but it will never work because the afferent position (or the idea of photons traveling through space/time which bring the pattern) is not congruent with this model.

I thought you said you were finished weaseling? Was that another lie?

It doesn't take an expert to know that photons can't be somewhere without any possible explanation for where they came from or how they got there.

Your non-model doesn't make sense to you either. And you can't see how it works without violating physics.

You didn't do the best that you could. You lied, weaseled, and evaded without making any effort at all to address the problems explained to you.

Your non-model isn't even congruent with itself.

[Spacemonkey]