A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Boy did this give me a good laugh. Thank you David. I needed that. People should know by now why you are so against this knowledge. Because it contradicts your belief in afferent vision, which you hold very dear to your heart. People are not here just to question a crazy person. They are here because the book is intriguing. But you are so defensive, you never gave it a chance.

Just curious, exactly who is it that you believe is intrigued by the book?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Online everyone is anonymous, in real live you can confront the other person for real. If that other person is exhibiting irrational behavior there are things that can be done by interested 3rd parties, even if just reporting to authorities and letting events take their course. On the internet there is usually no way to know who you are dealing with, Peacegirl is the exception as someone could track her down if desired, but what do you do then, her posts are online, not screaming on a street corner. She could easily claim that she is playing with us or trolling, and then what can you do? we are only left with countering her posts with reality, I don't believe there is any way for anyone here to get her the help she needs.

That isn't really what I'm getting at, though. I'm not asking for anyone to do anything, as if anything could be done. I'm actually wondering why we don't stop doing stuff -- namely, laughing at the crazy person.

I'm saying, I'm pretty sure that none of us would spend two and a half years laughing at a crazy person standing a soapbox on a street corner IRL. And I bet none of us would spend two and a half years pestering such a person with questions, knowing, after the first day or two, that we would receive only duplicitous or incoherent responses. So why do we do it online? What is it about the online environment that makes us do what we would never do IRL?

My point is that the other rationalizations for posting -- that we are educating peacegirl, or educating lurkers -- are really empty claims. So why are we doing this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am very serious about marketing Spacemonkey...

No you're not. Actions speak louder than words, Peacegirl. And your actions show that you have no interest in marketing at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Back on ignore.

By which you mean not on ignore at all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I was thinking back to the pertussis shot. Most children show signs of serious trouble after the second injection.

A VACCINATION HORROR STORY

I rest my case.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are not here just to question a crazy person. They are here because the book is intriguing.

No, Peacegirl. You are deluding yourself. Everyone is here to see what you will do and say next. We are all here to see the crazy person. Remember when you finally worked out that you were FF's chew toy, and that it would be best for you to leave? Remember when you decided to ignore that and stay anyway?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The teachings of religion put fear in her heart. She believed her children were doomed because of her evilness. In her distorted way of thinking she thought she was doing the right thing. She was not born evil Angakuk.

I never said she was evil, by birth or otherwise. I asked if her actions were evil, according to your fluid definition of evil.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How about vaccine promoters? You are sure their information is pristine? This is not about one ingredient LadyShea. This is about the number and type of ingredients in combination that are injected into our children year after year. We don't know whether there is a direct or indirect association with these vaccines, which is why pro-vaccine advocates should not be so hasty in saying that the vaccines aren't causing serious problems in some children. Again, if they want to vaccinate their children, fine, but they can't tell me what I should do.

What a silly thing to say. Of course they can tell you what you should do. Doesn't meant that you have to do it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The world was not ready to hear this discovery during my father's lifetime. If the world is ready now, it probably won't be difficult to bring this discovery to light. But if it's not ready, there will be roadblocks that will be difficult to get past. This is not up to me, as much as I would love to see the launching of this new world in my lifetime.

There are two obvious roadblocks right now. The first is the book itself and the second is your promotion of the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most injuries occur after the first dose in prone children.

If that is true, then they should only administer vaccines to upright children.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say that. I interpreted it that way.

Your interpretation was wrong. I never even suggested that such might have been the case.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In general evil means not desired or wanted. Good means desired or wanted. Give me an example of what you mean.

Lionel Messi is a good footballer.

Caring for the sick is a good act.

Investing for retirement is a good idea.

Does "good" carry exactly the same meaning in all of these examples, or does each convey a different sense of the word?

[Vivisectus]

I laugh at crazy people in real life all the time. I do not laugh at mentally ill people, but good honest crazies like racists, people who buy into woo medicine, religious fundies, and other assorted blockheads with crazy ideas are fair game, IMO. I don't think Peacegirl counts as mentally ill.

Is she deeply irrational? Sure. Does she have some serious issues? Absolutely. Is it possible that she would struggle to pass 90 on an IQ test? If I had to make a guess I would say yeah. But that does not make her mentally ill.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm saying, I'm pretty sure that none of us would spend two and a half years laughing at a crazy person standing a soapbox on a street corner IRL. And I bet none of us would spend two and a half years pestering such a person with questions, knowing, after the first day or two, that we would receive only duplicitous or incoherent responses. So why do we do it online? What is it about the online environment that makes us do what we would never do IRL?

My point is that the other rationalizations for posting -- that we are educating peacegirl, or educating lurkers -- are really empty claims. So why are we doing this?

If I walked to work every day and every day for the past 2 1/2 years I passed the same crazy person preaching from a soapbox I would probably stop from time to time and laugh and maybe ask the occasional question or toss out the occasional barb. Yeah, I would probably do that. I would definitely do it if the crazy person was running for public office, like Anthony Weiner maybe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That isn't really what I'm getting at, though. I'm not asking for anyone to do anything, as if anything could be done. I'm actually wondering why we don't stop doing stuff -- namely, laughing at the crazy person.

I'm saying, I'm pretty sure that none of us would spend two and a half years laughing at a crazy person standing a soapbox on a street corner IRL. And I bet none of us would spend two and a half years pestering such a person with questions, knowing, after the first day or two, that we would receive only duplicitous or incoherent responses. So why do we do it online? What is it about the online environment that makes us do what we would never do IRL?

My point is that the other rationalizations for posting -- that we are educating peacegirl, or educating lurkers -- are really empty claims. So why are we doing this?

Because they like what they hear to your utter dismay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. Actions speak louder than words, Peacegirl. And your actions show that you have no interest in marketing at all.

What's it to you what I do? You think you know me like a book (no pun intended). Yes, actions speak louder than words, but you have no way of knowing whether I will back up my words with actions. Believing that I won't is a faith based assertion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I never said she was evil, by birth or otherwise. I asked if her actions were evil, according to your fluid definition of evil.

It is heartbreaking that she was so deluded and, as a result, believed her children were better off dead. The word evil implies that there is some inherent quality in a person that makes them desire hurting others, so it really doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How about vaccine promoters? You are sure their information is pristine? This is not about one ingredient LadyShea. This is about the number and type of ingredients in combination that are injected into our children year after year. We don't know whether there is a direct or indirect association with these vaccines, which is why pro-vaccine advocates should not be so hasty in saying that the vaccines aren't causing serious problems in some children. Again, if they want to vaccinate their children, fine, but they can't tell me what I should do.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What a silly thing to say. Of course they can tell you what you should do. Doesn't meant that you have to do it.

Actually they can't tell me what I should do if I don't want their advice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The world was not ready to hear this discovery during my father's lifetime. If the world is ready now, it probably won't be difficult to bring this discovery to light. But if it's not ready, there will be roadblocks that will be difficult to get past. This is not up to me, as much as I would love to see the launching of this new world in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There are two obvious roadblocks right now. The first is the book itself and the second is your promotion of the book.

There is nothing wrong with the book. There are always going to be critics, but I'm comfortable with the way I compiled it. Marketing is going to be tough but through trial and error I'll find out what works and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say that. I interpreted it that way.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your interpretation was wrong. I never even suggested that such might have been the case.

That means that if her environment had been different and she had a healthier set of beliefs, this might never have occurred.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Lionel Messi is a good footballer.

Caring for the sick is a good act.

Investing for retirement is a good idea.

Does "good" carry exactly the same meaning in all of these examples, or does each convey a different sense of the word?

Obviously the word good has many definitions but it usually connotes something desirable, wanted, or liked.

Good - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

That isn't really what I'm getting at, though. I'm not asking for anyone to do anything, as if anything could be done. I'm actually wondering why we don't stop doing stuff -- namely, laughing at the crazy person.

I'm saying, I'm pretty sure that none of us would spend two and a half years laughing at a crazy person standing a soapbox on a street corner IRL. And I bet none of us would spend two and a half years pestering such a person with questions, knowing, after the first day or two, that we would receive only duplicitous or incoherent responses. So why do we do it online? What is it about the online environment that makes us do what we would never do IRL?

My point is that the other rationalizations for posting -- that we are educating peacegirl, or educating lurkers -- are really empty claims. So why are we doing this?

Agreed, I gave up on educating Peacegirl a long time ago. As for lurkers, I don't thing there are many but every once in awhile there is something educational posted by the others. Apart from that is the entertainment value, and Peacegirl doesn't seem to be adverse to being the butt of the joke.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

So why are we doing this?

We could just as well ask "Why is Peacegirl still here?"

She's crazy? It's been stated, but I'm not so sure.
She's deluded, definitely.
She's craving negative attention, that is almost certain.
She enjoys being the butt of the joke, that goes with the negative attention.

Yes, I'm feeding her what she craves, learning some things, and being entertained. Sometimes I multitask by eating while at the computer and this keeps me off EBay where I'll just spend money that I shouldn't, cheap entertainment.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because they like what they hear to your utter dismay.

They like what they hear from you? In what sense, peacegirl? In the sense that they agree with your drivel? Can you name one person in this thread, after two and a half years, who has agreed with any of your babble? Can you find one person who has agreed with you in ten years of posting at a variety of message boards?

People like what you have to say because it gives them Lulz. They find you and your ridiculous claims amusing. That is why you've been called a chew toy.

And I'm suggesting, ultimately, we all ought to ask whether we ought to entertain ourselves by poking a stick at you. As for you, you ought to get some help for your delusions and your compulsion to peddle this twaddle.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Marketing is going to be tough but through trial and error I'll find out what works and what doesn't.

What will work is if you publish the book with blank pages and let people fill in their own text.

What doesn't work is the text in the book now, except for eye bleeding amusement.

That might be the answer market the book to masochists.

[LadyShea]

You mentioned formaldehyde specifically, now you are backpedaling. That's being a weasel

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How about vaccine promoters? You are sure their information is pristine? This is not about one ingredient LadyShea. This is about the number and type of ingredients in combination that are injected into our children year after year. We don't know whether there is a direct or indirect association with these vaccines, which is why pro-vaccine advocates should not be so hasty in saying that the vaccines aren't causing serious problems in some children. Again, if they want to vaccinate their children, fine, but they can't tell me what I should do.

An epidemic of chronic disease and disability is plaguing America. Our children are themost highly vaccinated children in the world and they are among the most chronically ill and disabled.

http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/4507NVIC11x17HIRES.aspx

Formaldehyde: Don’t Breathe or Touch – Injecting is Just Fine!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, they are talking about doses. I did not say this to make it appear more dangerous. The rate of dosing doesn't pose any less of a threat.

So they meant 36 doses, not 36 vaccines? Then the claim was not factual yet you repeated it.

Most injuries occur after the first dose in prone children.

Now, you've repeated another claim without offering supporting evidence. Let's see your independent verification of it.

[LadyShea]

I like to argue my position davidm, it's as simple as that. And yes I do this IRL with some people. My husband and I have had debates that lasted years

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's it to you what I do? You think you know me like a book (no pun intended). Yes, actions speak louder than words, but you have no way of knowing whether I will back up my words with actions. Believing that I won't is a faith based assertion.

No it isn't. It's a rational inductive inference. When you've done nothing at all for several years, it's rational to infer that you will continue to do nothing. You are welcome to prove us wrong by actually doing something constructive for a change. But you won't, because you have no interest at all in actually marketing your book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, they are talking about doses. I did not say this to make it appear more dangerous. The rate of dosing doesn't pose any less of a threat.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So they meant 36 doses, not 36 vaccines? Then the claim was not factual yet you repeated it.

This is what I read:

How could the government recommend limiting exposure to formaldehyde as much as possible and yet at the same time recommend injecting your child with frequent doses of it via 25 recommended vaccines by the age of 6 months, 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months, 43 vaccines by the age of 4-6 years old and a whopping 68 vaccines by the ages of 11-12 years old? Most people don't say 36 doses of vaccine material, but that may be what they mean. I can handle correction if I'm wrong LadyShea.

Related Answers:
How many vaccines do children get?
21 vaccines before the age of six, and generally 6 more before the age of 18, for a total of 27 in c
How many vaccines did children get in 1980?
In 1980 it was recommended that children get 3 vaccines: DTP (a combination vaccine for Diphtheria,

How many vaccines do children get

Most injuries occur after the first dose in prone children.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now, you've repeated another claim without offering supporting evidence. Let's see your independent verification of it.

LadyShea, you are accusing me of making claims when you are also guilty of doing the same thing. You google stuff and use it to make all kinds of claims.

I already said that this is not a definite claim. I am just recalling from memory that the pertussis vaccine seemed to have a cumulative effect in that a child didn't have serious symptoms until the second or third dose.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mentioned formaldehyde specifically, now you are backpedaling. That's being a weasel

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump. Don't you want to tell me about the horrors of formaldehyde anymore?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mentioned formaldehyde previously. You are aware that we are exposed to formaldehyde every day in our normal environment and that our bodies produce it as well, right? Since you "know all the research"?

Formaldehyde - Harmless in Vaccines?

Many in the medical community maintain that formaldehyde is "Naturally occuring in our environment. Therefore, it is harmless in vaccines". Is this really true? I think back to the toxic trailers that our Hurricane Katrina victims were residing in and just shake my head in disbelief. These victims are currently being studied for the damaging effects of breathing high concentrations of formaldehyde.

I have also been told that there is such a minute amount of formaldehyde in vaccines, that it is virtually harmless! Furthermore, in the link below, you will learn that "Chemicals like formaldehyde cross-link amino acids in proteins to chemically "cook" them. This often conserves the proteins antigens in a form that is useful for vaccines at the same time as it damages the toxin's ability to cause damage".

Vaccines Exposed: Formaldehyde - Harmless in Vaccines?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is what I read:

How could the government recommend limiting exposure to formaldehyde as much as possible and yet at the same time recommend injecting your child with frequent doses of it via 25 recommended vaccines by the age of 6 months, 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months, 43 vaccines by the age of 4-6 years old and a whopping 68 vaccines by the ages of 11-12 years old? Most people don't say 36 doses of vaccine material, but that may be what they mean. I can handle correction if I'm wrong LadyShea.

Related Answers:
How many vaccines do children get?
21 vaccines before the age of six, and generally 6 more before the age of 18, for a total of 27 in c
How many vaccines did children get in 1980?
In 1980 it was recommended that children get 3 vaccines: DTP (a combination vaccine for Diphtheria,

How many vaccines do children get

LadyShea, you are accusing me of making claims when you are also guilty of doing the same thing. You google stuff and use it to make all kinds of claims.

I already said that this is not a definite claim. I am just recalling from memory that the pertussis vaccine seemed to have a cumulative effect in that a child didn't have serious symptoms until the second or third dose.

I am not accusing you of anything. You made a assertion (didn't even include "IIRC" or something). And now you are backpedaling again.