A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, from what data set is this conclusion derived? What facts support this conclusion?

"None at all."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He would be utterly disgusted with the mess you have made of things. You have taken the good bits out, added stupid bits in, failed to sell a single book, and wasted ten years online lying to strangers about your corrupted text. No wonder he never trusted you with the authentic text!

Poor ole' pinwheel Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot tell me what he would have said because you don't know. I do know because I was his daughter and could predict what he might have said. He probably would have suggested that I leave this forum but he would have understood my reasons for sticking it out as long as I did. He would never have criticized me for my effort.

Of course we can because we have read his book which tells us what he would say and how he would say it, much more clearly than he said to his blinded and deafened daughter who couldn't see or hear any of his faults. Yes, he would never have criticized you for your efforts, just as most parents will not be overly critical of the artwork produced by their very young children, that are then displayed on the refrigerator. Underdeveloped children should always coddled and protected from harsh reality, until they are mature enough to handle it, something you have yet to achieve.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an assumption based on the belief that the environment has something to do with it. Whatever. This statement does not invalidate his 3 discoveries.

98%? He seemed to have some very inaccurate assumptions, but when he is wrong about concepts that can be verified, it is likely that he is also wrong about the concepts that cannot be verified. However he didn't have any bonafide discoveries so there is nothing to verify, Lessans was just making a lot of unsupported claims with no verifiable support.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is much controversy over the studies that claim that vaccines don't cause the injuries that have been reported.

Someone who is interested in these discoveries would see why I used this as an example and if they don't like it, the book is probably not for them.

There is no controversy, except in the anti-vaccine crowd.

That would be about 98% of the population that rejects Lessans Ideas. So you are going to start your commune with the left overs, that include all the anti-vaxxers and other loonies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Oh. Ok. So you said:

So when the Authentic Text states that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" what this means is that 98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence because of..."people not being able to find someone of their own sex?" Do you mean people not being able to find someone of the opposite sex?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

peacegirl, from what data set is this conclusion derived? What facts support this conclusion?

This was not a claim where he needed a data set. He may have been wrong in his extension, but that doesn't mean the principles are inaccurate.

This was an assumption based on the belief that the environment has something to do with it. Whatever. This statement does not invalidate his 3 discoveries.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So according to you the book contain assumptions that are presented as claims? And you just decide which is which?

These were not claims. You cannot use this as a reason to dismiss his entire discovery.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These were not claims. You cannot use this as a reason to dismiss his entire discovery.

Of course it does, if he extensions are wrong then the principles on which they were based are also wrong.

Discoveries cannot be based on assumptions, till those assumptions are verified, and Lessans assumptions were never verified, and probably never will be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He would have criticized you for ruining his book, failing to sell a single copy, and turning him into a complete laughing stock all across the internet. He would not have been impressed with your blatant lying either.

He would have been so proud of me for carrying the ball. He knew how difficult it would be to break through the stubborn resistance that he himself experienced firsthand so long ago.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Firstly,I have to give you credit for finally acknowledging that at least one of Lessans' claims is merely an assumption. That is progress, of a sort.

Secondly, you deserve additional credit for acknowledging that his assumption was belief based and not fact based. Again, that is progress, of a sort.

Thirdly, I have to agree with you that Lessans' assumption(s) do not invalidate his 3 alleged discoveries.

However, his ignorant and unsupported assumptions do damage his credibility with regard to all of the claims he makes.

To you it may but any true investigator would not use this against him.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Claims which are all grounded on assumptions that are belief based and unsupported by fact or evidence. I know you won't understand why this undermines his credibility or why credibility is important. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the very concept of credibility or why it is important. You do this every time you cite sources that lack even the most basic degree of credibility.

You can use anything against me if that's your goal. None of this disproves his 3 discoveries. That's all that matters.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, so there is no factual basis for this statement. Fair enough.

peacegirl, did you remove this statement from the Corrupted Text?

peacegirl, did you edit this statement out of the recordings?

Begin at 16:20 and read along, beginning at the bottom of page 65; you will find that the tape itself has been corrupted to remove this statement. The tape itself has been rather inartfully distorted to make it appear that the author was referring to adultery rather than homo-sexual intercourse.

First of all, you have the wrong book. I did remove homosexual because it would be used against him like you're doing right now, but I did not replace it with adultery. Let me add that other than a few extraneous sounds, this was the only thing I edited out. I'm sorry if you think that was wrong to do.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, you have the wrong book.

peacegirl, why do you believe I have the wrong book?

I did remove homosexual because it would be used against him like you're doing right now, but I did not replace it with adultery.

peacegirl, did you corrupt the tape, beginning around 16:20?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, did you corrupt the tape, beginning around 16:20?

Someone certainly did. My money's on the hack who rafaelized the Authentic Text.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would have been so proud of me for carrying the ball. He knew how difficult it would be to break through the stubborn resistance that he himself experienced firsthand so long ago.

What's to be proud of? You haven't achieved anything other than to corrupt his text, sell zero books, and make him a laughing stock all across the internet while discrediting yourself with your constant lies and evasion. What kind of father would be proud of that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, why do you believe I have the wrong book?

Because this was Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought.

I did remove homosexual because it would be used against him like you're doing right now, but I did not replace it with adultery.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, did you corrupt the tape, beginning around 16:20?

I just told you I took out that one word. Why do you keep repeating the same question?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this was Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought.

peacegirl, why do you believe I have the wrong book?

I did remove homosexual because it would be used against him like you're doing right now, but I did not replace it with adultery.

peacegirl, how have I "used it against him"? I just asked what the factual basis for that conclusion was - you indicated that there is none. Ok.

I just told you I took out that one word. Why do you keep repeating the same question?

peacegirl, you took out more than one word. Why do you keep lying?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, you have the wrong book...

By "the wrong book" I assume you mean the authentic text, written and published by the author in his own lifetime, and therefore not subject to the corruptions of his deranged and incompetent daughter? IOW, the book you don't have because he never left you a copy? That book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, why do you believe I have the wrong book?

peacegirl, how have I "used it against him"? I just asked what the factual basis for that conclusion was - you indicated that there is none. Ok.

peacegirl, you took out more than one word. Why do you keep lying?

What other words did I take out. You have the right book.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

ChuckF reviews the Authentic Text and notes an intriguing change-of-pronoun corruption. In the background, PupF recognizes the Authentic Text by sight alone.

Can we assume that "when she begins to apply the principles of the examination," which appears to be a sine qua non for even a possibility that her philandering knob of a husband might deign to stay, means "when she drops some goddamn blubber and develops the common courtesy to go sleep on the sofa after sucking his stubby lily-white crank mighty phallic symbol"? I ask because it appears that the Messiah preferred sleeping alone and had no use whatsoever for fat chicks.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other words did I take out. You have the right book.

IOW, the one you DON'T have.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other words did I take out.

Jesus Christ, you took the whole paragraph out of your Corrupted Text.

In the hamfisted corruption of the tape (beginning around 16:20) you took out all of the underlined words to attempt to completely change the meaning of the paragraph.

Try to read along with us now:

You have the right book.

No shit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What's to be proud of? You haven't achieved anything other than to corrupt his text, sell zero books, and make him a laughing stock all across the internet while discrediting yourself with your constant lies and evasion. What kind of father would be proud of that?

Because he knew what I was up against, and he would have given me credit for making such a difficult attempt. Many people wouldn't have even tried.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other words did I take out.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Jesus Christ, you took the whole paragraph out of your Corrupted Text.

In the hamfisted corruption of the tape (beginning around 16:20) you took out all of the underlined words to attempt to completely change the meaning of the paragraph.

Try to read along with us now:

You have the right book.

Originally Posted by Chuck

No shit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because he knew what I was up against, and he would have given me credit for making such a difficult attempt. Many people wouldn't have even tried.

So you think you deserve credit for trying yet failing, and then resorting to lies and evasion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, why do you believe I have the wrong book?

peacegirl, how have I "used it against him"? I just asked what the factual basis for that conclusion was - you indicated that there is none. Ok.

peacegirl, you took out more than one word. Why do you keep lying?

The same sentence, is that better?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same sentence, is that better?

No, peacegirl, not really, because it is still not true.

But here we are really just talking about degrees of corruption, not only of the Authentic Text, but even the tape.