A revolution in thought

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can start a blog, but unless I have a following it will go unread. I may have to connect with other bloggers as a guest, and go from there. Websites using wordpress involve more than a blog.

Websites can involve other things besides WordPress, but they need not and many websites consist of just a WordPress blog and nothing else.

And there's no "magic" to getting a following: the search engines, such as Google, will automatically find your site without you doing anything; a few people will then find your site when searching and if your writing is interesting enough they'll mention it to their friends and on other websites...

When I say there's no magic, I only mean there's no technical magic: if you want to draw a large following then you do need some personal magic that allows your writing to appeal to a large audience and keep that audience coming back for more.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Will Peacegirl be honest today?

No? How about today then?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No? How about today then?

You are such an infernal optimist.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the proof. Isn't that what everyone wants?

Already did. Just read it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admit that I said I would work on it, but I haven't yet been able to. I need to take a course so I can do wordpress myself. I have no money to work on this, which is a big problem. Does anyone want to donate? I'm being serious right now. I HAVE NO MONEY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM HERE?

Wordpress is free. And super-easy to use. There are also lots of other free, opensource options, as ten minutes on google would have shown you. No need to ask for hand-outs. Isn't it a tenet of your book that you should not be asking other people to do what you can easily do yourself? Consider this your metaphorical getting up and walking to the kitchen clock yourself in stead of bothering your father by asking him what time it is.

Simply take a break from googling holocaust-deniers, anti-Semites and people who think Aids is caused by a bad diet, and in stead do something worthwhile like learning a new skill.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you exaggerating? I'm not asking for birth certificates. A video will do. It will either support or refute the claims. Isn't that a fair question?

I am just poking fun of the idea that you seem to feel entitled to demand evidence in the specific form of a video. And that you think you could then evaluate that video. Or that it is reasonable to dismiss this study if no video is produced.

The study comes with a complete description of their method, and with all the results.

But hey - we can just say that from now on we no longer accept any evidence unless video is involved. Fine by me, but then your book is out too. No video evidence.

[GdB]

He, Peacegirl, I am waiting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am just poking fun of the idea that you seem to feel entitled to demand evidence in the specific form of a video. And that you think you could then evaluate that video. Or that it is reasonable to dismiss this study if no video is produced.

The study comes with a complete description of their method, and with all the results.

But hey - we can just say that from now on we no longer accept any evidence unless video is involved. Fine by me, but then your book is out too. No video evidence.

I'm not dismissing what in your eyes seems to be conclusive. I'm am reading the study, but their criteria (whether the dog looks a few seconds more) seems rather vague. Am I not supposed to question these experiments because you will use this against me? That automatically shuts the conversation down.

[peacegirl]

[quote=GdB;1247564]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No he has not proven anything. It's all circumstantial.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, it is exact. 2 Pictures of the same event, both with timing information. And the times differ. And do not forget TLR found this not as 'the proof' that instantaneous vision does not exist. There have been done endless experiments, there is endless experience, that what we see arrived at our eyes with the speed of light, because we see light with our eyes. But TLRs pictures show it to you. You cannot talk around it: it is there. Only by proposing a conspiracy of scientists, or by stating that those stupid scientists that can send space probes to all the planets are not able to synchronize their clocks, you can explain this away.

I think there is confusion here. Maybe Lessans was not clear on this. I can accept that. Light and matter are different. It takes time for light to arrive, that is true. The problem is whether we see, through light, the object if it meets the requirements of efferent vision. You all seem to ignore this very important observation, which is the reason he even came to this conclusion. Can you give him a little slack here before coming to your absolute conclusions that he was wrong? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have kept an open mind and I still believe Lessans was right in spite of the "apparent" proof of afferent vision. Until his claim is tested thoroughly (which it has not), I will maintain that he was right.

Originally Posted by GdB

It really does not need any tests any more: it is an established, scientific fact. It is not based on a few single experiments, as you seem to think. You have no idea about science, about how science works.

I am not coming from this vantage point. Many things that were once thought to be true were exposed later on. I have no investment in this other than sharing what Lessans observed. The least you could do is take it seriously, which you're not doing because you have already made up your mind that he had to be wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were not here when I addressed Spacemonkey's questions.

Originally Posted by GdB

Unless you give a link to these answers, I will consider this as lying.

Half of the discussion was addressed to Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you believe GdB; I don't have to give you any links to prove that I answered him numerous times, nor do I care to. You can find these conversations yourself. I am not going to spoonfeed everything to you. If you're interested, you'll find them.

Yeah... I noticed that too.

This is insane. My father was the kindest caring man you would ever want to meet. He wasn't a perfect human being, but he did have the intellectual capacity to make this discovery. He never laid a hand on me. I am shocked by the insinuations here. I would leave for this reason alone, but I'm stuck here until I find a better home for this discussion, therefore I have to deal with the false portrayal of a man who will one day be honored for his knowledge and wisdom.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no investment in this other than sharing what Lessans observed.

That is an utterly contemptible and completely transparent lie.

He never laid a hand on me. I am shocked by the insinuations here.

No one made any such insinuation. You jumped straight to that conclusion on your own.

Which is ... interesting.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No? How about today then?

Maybe today...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can start a blog, but unless I have a following it will go unread. I may have to connect with other bloggers as a guest, and go from there. Websites using wordpress involve more than a blog.

WordPress offers easy-to-create websites as well, no training or money required. If you want a website in addition to the one you already have, all you need do is jump in and set one up.

Sure you'd need to drum up an audience, but that's true for any medium. It certainly beats spinning your wheels on discussion forums, yes? As the saying goes, if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

WordPress offers easy-to-create websites as well, no training or money required. If you want a website in addition to the one you already have, all you need do is jump in and set one up.

Sure you'd need to drum up an audience, but that's true for any medium. It certainly beats spinning your wheels on discussion forums, yes? As the saying goes, if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting.

Very true! I don't want to set up another website. I just want to improve on the websites I have.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

a man who will one day be honored for his knowledge and wisdom.

When that day comes I will be manning the hot chocolate stand in Hell, while everyone is ice skating.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he did have the intellectual capacity to make this discovery. He never laid a hand on me. I am shocked by the insinuations here.

Abuse can take many forms other than physical, and many would consider what he did to you as far as the book would be extreme mental abuse.

Your fathers intellectual capacity was clearly demonstrated in his book as quite insufficient to what he thought he could do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Abuse can take many forms other than physical, and many would consider what he did to you as far as the book would be extreme mental abuse.

Your fathers intellectual capacity was clearly demonstrated in his book as quite insufficient to what he thought he could do.

You are intellectually deficient!

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1247772]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light and matter are different. It takes time for light to arrive, that is true. The problem is whether we see, through light, the object if it meets the requirements of efferent vision. You all seem to ignore this very important observation, which is the reason he even came to this conclusion.

The truth is that we percieve the light, we do not see the object, so the perception occurs after the light has had time to travel to us from the object. No-one is ignoring that an object has to be big enough and bright enough to see, but that is the same thing afferent vision requires, Lessans is claiming the same conditions as those for afferent vision and somehow concluding that they indicate efferent vision. It's really a good indication of how wrong Lessans was and how stupid his conclusions were. I know this is what Lessans contests, but Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are intellectually deficient!

So you don't have a real answer and cannot refute my statements, but you can resort to insult.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Maybe today...

Don't hold your breath.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are intellectually deficient!

Is this how you want to be remembered? As someone who spent her spare time going online just to insult people? Would you like your grandchildren to read this?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this how you want to be remembered? As someone who spent her spare time going online just to insult people? Would you like your grandchildren to read this?

But in her Brave new world order Golden Age, even her grandchildren will not blame her for being an insulting, mean spirited, foul mouthed, b***h. They will only see her as the savior of mankind by championing her fathers nonsensical joke of a book to Millions of unsuspecting, incredulous, cretins who would accept anything handed to them by someone claiming to know better. So yes, this is how she wants to be remembered by her grandchildren. She fought the good, (lost cause, hopeless, without foundation) fight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But in her Brave new world order Golden Age, even her grandchildren will not blame her for being an insulting, mean spirited, foul mouthed, b***h. They will only see her as the savior of mankind by championing her fathers nonsensical joke of a book to Millions of unsuspecting, incredulous, cretins who would accept anything handed to them by someone claiming to know better. So yes, this is how she wants to be remembered by her grandchildren. She fought the good, (lost cause, hopeless, without foundation) fight.

You're such a jerk and no matter how you amp this up, you will still be the same jerk you have always been from day one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this how you want to be remembered? As someone who spent her spare time going online just to insult people? Would you like your grandchildren to read this?

Spacemonkey, with all due respect, you have no understanding of this discovery at all so it is not surprising that you will say the things you say. Your words have no validity whatsoever. That doesn't mean I don't like you. I still do.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think there is confusion here. Maybe Lessans was not clear on this. I can accept that. Light and matter are different. It takes time for light to arrive, that is true. The problem is whether we see, through light, the object if it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

You defended that we see instantaneously. You defended that photo cameras do too. So if two photo cameras make pictures of the same event, then they see it at the same time, namely exactly the time that the event occurred. TLR's pictures of the impact of Shoemaker-Levy on Jupiter show that this is not the case. So vision is not instantaneous. You are wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You all seem to ignore this very important observation, which is the reason he even came to this conclusion. Can you give him a little slack here before coming to your absolute conclusions that he was wrong?

No, because the verdict is already out for many years. We see because light, travelling with 300,000 km/s, reaches our retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many things that were once thought to be true were exposed later on.

Yes, but not in complete contradiction with what people already know. Stating that efferent vision does not contradict established science does not mean it doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no investment in this other than sharing what Lessans observed. The least you could do is take it seriously, which you're not doing because you have already made up your mind that he had to be wrong.

Not that he has to be wrong: he is wrong. Your understanding of science, its contents and its way of progressing, is so bad, that you do not see this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Half of the discussion was addressed to Spacemonkey.

But he is still waiting for answers on your questions. Point to your posting(s) where you addressed his questions. If you can't, or won't, I know you are a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is insane. My father was the kindest caring man you would ever want to meet. He wasn't a perfect human being, but he did have the intellectual capacity to make this discovery. He never laid a hand on me.

Don't forget: it was you who referred to sexual abuse. But it's ok, I can let this rest. It is just funny that you came with it, where Stephen Maturin only suggested that you were neglected by your father.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will still be the same jerk you have always been from day one.

Thankyou, can I put that on my Resume?