A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans is right, the explosion of a Supernovae can be so huge that that we would be able to see it with the naked eye, or with a telescope as it is happening. You already knew what I was going to say Spacemonkey. We've been over this a thousand times. Why harp on it if you're positive Lessans was wrong? Let it go.

Yes, the one in 1572 was visible with the naked eye. But the X-ray images taken today match the visible-light images exactly, so either X-rays arrive instantly too or we don't see in real time. The End.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How to Correctly Interpret P Values

I'm sorry, but you aren't remotely qualified to talk about the interpretation of statistical quantities, you couldn't even figure out the basic meaning. You have no idea what any of this means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, the one in 1572 was visible with the naked eye. But the X-ray images taken today match the visible-light images exactly, so either X-rays arrive instantly too or we don't see in real time. The End.

I don't see where that's a problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I'm sorry, but you aren't remotely qualified to talk about the interpretation of statistical quantities, you couldn't even figure out the basic meaning. You have no idea what any of this means.

Maybe I'm not qualified to talk about the interpretation of statistical quantities (I never said I was), but statisticians are, and many are concerned about the accuracy of P-values and how the results can be misinterpreted.

[But]

Everything can be misinterpreted. Do you have any evidence that this is the case in any of those experiments, let alone all of them?

Rhetorical question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Everything can be misinterpreted. Do you have any evidence that this is the case in any of those experiments, let alone all of them?

Rhetorical question.

I don't think the experiment with the dog gives enough evidence to come close to proving what you think it proves. As I said earlier, you would ignore the fact that a dog (who misses his master) would not respond to a photo with any kind of recognition. Moreover, if not given familiar cues, a dog will not be sure that it is his master coming in, and will be hesitant until he confirms that it is his master through his sense of smell. This means nothing to you because careful observation means nothing to you. That's why you would reject a parent's heartfelt testimony regarding their child's regression after being vaccinated. I'm grateful you're not the judge.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think the experiment with the dog gives enough evidence to come close to proving what you think it proves. As I said earlier, you would ignore the fact that a dog (who misses his master) would not respond to a photo with any kind of recognition. Moreover, if not given familiar cues, a dog will not be sure that it is his master coming in, and will be hesitant until he confirms that it is his master through his sense of smell. This means nothing to you because careful observation means nothing to you. That's why you reject a parent's testimony about their child regressing after being vaccinated because the experiment in your eyes is more accurate. It all makes sense now.

No, it doesn't. Those aren't controlled experiments, those are unsubstantiated claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, it doesn't. Those aren't controlled experiments, those are unsubstantiated claims.

What do you mean "unsubstantiated claims". Observation is part of the scientific method. It is a collection of data, which you are ignoring. Please show me a dog that recognizes his master from a photo. I know my son's dog adores him because she knows he saved her from being euthanized at the pound. I watched the dog for two weeks, and when my son was on his way to my home, all I had to say is "where is daddy?" and the dog went crazy and ran to the door waiting eagerly to greet him. Now if showed the dog a photo or even a snapshot of my son on a computer screen with no other cues, the dog would not respond at all, nada. Wouldn't you think the dog would at least stare at the photo, wag her tail, cock her head, or anything else that would indicate recognition? That is important data, and it can be replicated over and over again.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please show me a dog that recognizes his master from a photo. I know my son's dog adores him because she knows he saved her from being euthanized at the pound. I watched the dog for two weeks, and when my son was on his way to my home, all I had to say is "where is daddy?" and the dog went crazy and ran to the door waiting eagerly to greet him. Now if showed the dog a photo or even a snapshot of my son on a computer screen with no other cues, the dog would not respond at all, nada. Wouldn't you think the dog would at least stare at the photo, wag her tail, cock her head, or anything else that would indicate recognition? That is important data, and it can be replicated over and over again.

Ok, peacegirl! Here's a bunch of experiments pointing to the same conclusion. They have been posted before. I suspect you can't see them because of retard blinders.

Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris - ScienceDirect

How dogs scan familiar and inverted faces: an eye movement study | SpringerLink

Discrimination of familiar human faces in dogs (Canis familiaris) - ScienceDirect

Recognition of human faces by dogs ( Canis familiaris) requires visibility of head contour | SpringerLink

Science is done. Observations are in. Dogs and humans see with eyes.

I know peacegirl: this isn't some clickbait on YouTube that claims to show a dog that has been separated from a human who claims to be its master for two years, which would it itself be an experimental confound that would render any actual data useless, and none of which is capable of verification, much less reproduction. No, it is actual science of the type which you claim to be desperately interested in - the kind of that you are trying to gull people into spending $41.00 on your Corrupted Text to fund. Of course, you're not actually interested in it. You just want that cash.

You advance extraordinary and transparently silly claims, but obviously cannot produce any evidence whatsoever to support them.* There is, in fact, extensive and conclusive evidence that your claims are completely wrong, with which you are repeatedly presented. The consequence of that is not that you dispute the science. Your'e not capable of disputing the science other than just stamping your feet and posting irrelevant stuff that Google spits out. It's just that idiot clickbait on YouTube is much easier for you to process. We've seen that over and over again, peacegirl, in both my "A Revolution in Thought" thread, and in your idiot vaccines threads. When confronted with actual science and data, you simply reject it on vague, unarticulated terms, and post some new idiot YouTube bullshit.

The rather amusing part is that the extraordinary claims you advance do not even support, and are not even logically related to, the assertions that they are intended to advance. The proof by dog eyes is so hilarious because even if it the dog eyes part was true, it would simply be trivial at best - it does nothing to advance, and is not even logically related to, the claim that the eyes are not sense organs, or that supernovae are really really really close by, or any of the other nonsense babble. It's pure goofiness, which is why it is so funny to watch you stomp your feet over it.

I think the fundamental issue is that you are quite lazy and stupid. You don't really have the attention span, the education, or the basic cognitive capability to read and understand a news article, much less a piece of academic writing. That why you are so consistently busted just posting headlines of stuff you have found on Google and obviously haven't read. It is also why you so hilariously rely on so many Holocaust deniers.

So I guess you are waiting on some YouTube channel to prove that we don't see with eyes, because of dog eyes, and therefore there is a supernova a thousand miles away, get comfortable. Grab a drink. (j/k I know you already have a drink) Because seriously, nobody is going to do that, because it is dumbass nonsense.

But even if they did, science isn't done by YouTube. No one cares that you saw a YouTube video one time, peacegirl.


*

show spoiler

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think the experiment with the dog gives enough evidence to come close to proving what you think it proves.

And why? Oh, that's right, because you don't like the results. And it wasn't one experiment, there were many.

As I said earlier, you would ignore the fact that a dog (who misses his master) would not respond to a photo with any kind of recognition.

You don't know that, unless you have a mind-reading machine. Oh wait, they exist, and you have been linked to a study that does MRI scans of dogs looking at faces.

Please show me a dog that recognizes his master from a photo.

You could write an email to the researchers and ask them about it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

And why? Oh, that's right, because you don't like the results. And it wasn't one experiment, there were many.

You don't know that, unless you have a mind-reading machine. Oh wait, they exist, and you have been linked to a study that does MRI scans of dogs looking at faces.

What does the MRI scan prove? The dog is looking at something, and that area of the brain may light up, but that does not prove that the dog cognitively recognizes a face as someone familiar.

Please show me a dog that recognizes his master from a photo.

Originally Posted by But

You could write an email to the researchers and ask them about it.

Such bullshit But. It's amazing how even researchers can convince themselves that their experiment is accurate and that it confirms what they want it to confirm. You can say I'm doing that, but all I am doing is carefully observing. Why did my son's dog (who is a smart breed) not recognize him even though she went crazy when she smelled him? You keep ignoring this data.

Confirmation and Matching Biases
in Hypothesis Testing

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing how even researchers can convince themselves that their experiment is accurate and that it confirms what they want it to confirm. You can say I'm doing that, but all I am doing is carefully observing. Why did my son's dog (who is a smart breed) not recognize him even though she went crazy when she smelled him? You keep ignoring this data.

peacegirl, that isn't data. Not even a single data point. You're not doing an experiment, and you're not doing science. You're just saying stuff about this one dog you know. Like I'm not even saying you are affected by confirmation bias here, because that's not even like an elementary school science fair science experiment. It's like the made-up nonsense babble about how scientists must have derived the speed of light on the basis that it must function like sound.

Have you ever considered that your own cognitive limitations might constitute a significant barrier to getting the word out about your Corrupted Text?

[But]

How Do Dogs Recognize Human Faces? | Psychology Today

"I did remember that some researchers seemed to think that the ability that dogs have to understand faces was inborn rather than learned but I couldn't recall any details and didn't know exactly how to respond to her. Can you tell me what the facts really are?"

Actually, the situation is really simple — the brain of a dog is hardwired to recognize human faces. Of course, demonstrating this is not necessarily easy, but several pieces of research all lead to this conclusion.

The results were relatively unambiguous. When presented with human faces the area of the brain which responded most vigorously in the dogs was the ventral temporal cortex (the front part of the temporal cortex), and this area was relatively unresponsive to images of objects which were not faces. This roughly corresponds to the same region of the brain that is involved in the recognition of same species faces in the other animals that have been tested using single cell measures. So dogs are responding to human faces in the same region of the brain where they respond to dog faces.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please show me a dog that recognizes his master from a photo. I know my son's dog adores him because she knows he saved her from being euthanized at the pound. I watched the dog for two weeks, and when my son was on his way to my home, all I had to say is "where is daddy?" and the dog went crazy and ran to the door waiting eagerly to greet him. Now if showed the dog a photo or even a snapshot of my son on a computer screen with no other cues, the dog would not respond at all, nada. Wouldn't you think the dog would at least stare at the photo, wag her tail, cock her head, or anything else that would indicate recognition? That is important data, and it can be replicated over and over again.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Ok, peacegirl! Here's a bunch of experiments pointing to the same conclusion. They have been posted before. I suspect you can't see them because of retard blinders.

Where have they replicated this? Are these unrelated experiments all you could find? Where are the exact experiments replicated? You're going online and finding anything that is related to dogs and sight, but none are reproductions.

Originally Posted by Chuck

How dogs scan familiar and inverted faces: an eye movement study | SpringerLink
In this study, facial inversion effect (deficits in face processing when the image is turned upside down) and responses to personal familiarity were tested using eye movement tracking. A total of 23 pet dogs and eight kennel dogs were compared to establish the effects of life experiences on their scanning behavior. All dogs preferred conspecific faces and showed great interest in the eye area, suggesting that they perceived images representing faces. Dogs fixated at the upright faces as long as the inverted faces, but the eye area of upright faces gathered longer total duration and greater relative fixation duration than the eye area of inverted stimuli, regardless of the species (dog or human) shown in the image. Personally, familiar faces and eyes attracted more fixations than the strange ones, suggesting that dogs are likely to recognize conspecific and human faces in photographs. The results imply that face scanning in dogs is guided not only by the physical properties of images, but also by semantic factors.Discrimination of familiar human faces in dogs (Canis familiaris) - ScienceDirect

First of all, they say it suggests, dogs are likely... These words do not represent confidence: Personally, familiar faces and eyes attracted more fixations than the strange ones, suggesting that dogs are likely to recognize conspecific and human faces in photographs.

This was a suggestion based on very little evidence. How long the dog fixated on the photo? 4 seconds was statistically significant, but 2 seconds was not? And this counts as proof? And what are the semantic factors that they mentioned? Try harder next time.

There is also suggestive evidence that dogs can identify their owner or other familiar human individuals by using visual information from the face. However, most studies have used only dogs’ looking behavior to examine their visual processing of human faces and it has been demonstrated only that dogs can differentiate between familiar and unknown human faces. Here, we examined the dog's ability to discriminate the faces of two familiar persons by active choice (approach and touch). Furthermore, in successive stages of the experiment we investigated how well dogs discriminate humans in different representations by systematically reducing the informational richness and the quality of the stimuli. We found a huge inter-individual and inter-stage variance in performance, indicating differences across dogs in their learning ability as well as their selection of discriminative cues. On a group level, the performance of dogs significantly decreased when they were presented with pictures of human heads after having learned to discriminate the real heads, and when – after relearning – confronted with the same pictures showing only the inner parts of the heads. However, as two dogs quickly mastered all stages, we conclude that dogs are in principle able to discriminate people on the basis of visual information from their faces and by making active choices.
Recognition of human faces by dogs ( Canis familiaris) requires visibility of head contour | SpringerLink

This experiment is so vague, and you call it scientific? I'd like to see the actual study, and I'd like to see how they determine the accuracy of what they're claiming. They say the dog had active choice, approach and touch. Obviously, they trained the dog to touch one of the photos in order to get a reward. Where is the replication Chuck? The error rate is off the charts.

Experiment 1 of this study investigated whether dogs can recognise humans using visual information from the face/head region, and whether this also occurs in conditions of suboptimal visibility of the face. Dogs were presented with their owner’s and a stranger’s heads, protruding through openings of an apparatus in opposite parts of the experimental setting. Presentations occurred in conditions of either optimal or suboptimal visibility; the latter featured non-frontal orientation, uneven illumination and invisibility of outer contours of the heads. Instances where dogs approached their owners with a higher frequency than predicted by chance were considered evidence of recognition. This occurred only in the optimal condition. With a similar paradigm, Experiment 2 investigated which of the alterations in visibility that characterised the suboptimal condition accounted for dogs’ inability to recognise owners. Dogs approached their owners more frequently than predicted by chance if outer head contours were visible, but not if heads were either frontally oriented or evenly illuminated. Moreover, male dogs were slightly better at recognition than females. These findings represent the first clear demonstration that dogs can recognise human faces and that outer face elements are crucial for such a task, complementing previous research on human face processing in dogs.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Science is done. Observations are in. Dogs and humans see with eyes.

What is considered a random choice, and what is not, is governed by the null hypothesis that tries to give it a P-value, but it can be subject to error, yet you are counting on this to be a major find. Instances where dogs approached their owners with a higher frequency than predicted by chance were considered evidence of recognition. What does that even mean? What determines how many times a dog goes to one picture to be considered more than just chance? Oh I forgot: the P-value. Did you forget that P-values can be very misleading?

Originally Posted by Chuck

I know peacegirl: this isn't some clickbait on YouTube that claims to show a dog that has been separated from a human who claims to be its master for two years, which would it itself be an experimental confound that would render any actual data useless, and none of which is capable of verification, much less reproduction.

Wrong. This is not clickbait. Videos (as long as they aren't fake or altered) do not lie. They are great observational tools.

Originally Posted by Chuck

No, it is actual science of the type which you claim to be desperately interested in - the kind of that you are trying to gull people into spending $41.00 on your Corrupted Text to fund. Of course, you're not actually interested in it. You just want that cash.

You're disgusting.

Originally Posted by Chuck

You advance extraordinary and transparently silly claims, but obviously cannot produce any evidence whatsoever to support them.* There is, in fact, extensive and conclusive evidence that your claims are completely wrong, with which you are repeatedly presented. The consequence of that is not that you dispute the science. Your'e not capable of disputing the science other than just stamping your feet and posting irrelevant stuff that Google spits out. It's just that idiot clickbait on YouTube is much easier for you to process. We've seen that over and over again, peacegirl, in both my "A Revolution in Thought" thread, and in your idiot vaccines threads. When confronted with actual science and data, you simply reject it on vague, unarticulated terms, and post some new idiot YouTube bullshit.

I do not reject vague, unarticulated terms. I trust actual science and data, and astute observation is part of scientific methodology, according to epistemology, the study of how we attain knowledge.

Originally Posted by Chuck

The rather amusing part is that the extraordinary claims you advance do not even support, and are not even logically related to, the assertions that they are intended to advance. The proof by dog eyes is so hilarious because even if it the dog eyes part was true, it would simply be trivial at best - it does nothing to advance, and is not even logically related to, the claim that the eyes are not sense organs, or that supernovae are really really really close by, or any of the other nonsense babble. It's pure goofiness, which is why it is so funny to watch you stomp your feet over it.

If Lessans is right and it's true that dogs cannot recognize familiar faces by sight alone, it is anything but trivial and does support the assertions that they are intended to advance. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read the book.

Originally Posted by Chuck

I think the fundamental issue is that you are quite lazy and stupid. You don't really have the attention span, the education, or the basic cognitive capability to read and understand a news article, much less a piece of academic writing. That why you are so consistently busted just posting headlines of stuff you have found on Google and obviously haven't read. It is also why you so hilariously rely on so many Holocaust deniers.

You are copying Maturin, which makes you a liar too. I do not rely on so many Holocaust deniers.

Originally Posted by Chuck

So I guess you are waiting on some YouTube channel to prove that we don't see with eyes, because of dog eyes, and therefore there is a supernova a thousand miles away, get comfortable. Grab a drink. (j/k I know you already have a drink) Because seriously, nobody is going to do that, because it is dumbass nonsense.

What the hell are you talking about now Chuck? Who is looking for a Youtube channel to prove that we don't see with eyes? And I never said a Supernova was a thousand miles away. I said it would either have to be closer to us or it would have to be enormous for us to see it with a telescope, or with our naked eye. Don't make up shit please.

Originally Posted by Chuck

But even if they did, science isn't done by YouTube. No one cares that you saw a YouTube video one time, peacegirl.

Experiments can be done, and it's not that difficult. The only thing that has to be controlled is that the dog misses his master, and that the dog isn't given cues by other sounds or smells that would give his master's identification away. The experiments that you found online are perfect examples of results that don't prove a darn thing.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have they replicated this? Is this all you could find?

Uh, no - there's a bunch more. Right after this one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, they say it suggests, dogs are likely... These words do not represent confidence.

No, peacegirl - this is a thing I think you don't understand about science. Experiments provide evidence that tends to show that a hypothesis is or is not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was a suggestion based on very little evidence of anything. A fixation? Where is the replication? Try harder next time Chuck.

peacegirl, did you even read the abstract?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, this experiment is so vague, and you call this scientific? I'd like to see the actual study, and I'd like to see how they determine what they're claiming. By active choice, approach and touch? Obviously, they trained the dog to touch one of the photos in order to get a reward. Where is the replication Chuck? The error rate is off the charts.

peacegirl, you have no idea what the "error rate" (? have no idea what you even mean by this) is. This is exactly what I mean when I say "when confronted with actual science and data, you simply reject it on vague, unarticulated terms."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This again is so vague, it proves nothing. Instances where dogs approached their owners with a higher frequency than predicted by chance were considered evidence of recognition. What does that even mean? What determines how many times a dog goes to one picture to be considered more than just chance? Where is the cut-off point and who determines this. This whole thing is a crock.

peacegirl, you could find all that and more if you actually read the article. Here is the whole thing for you to read but I warn you it is longer than a YouTube video description, so I doubt you will read it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not reject vague, unarticulated terms. I trust actual science and data, and astute observation is part of scientific methodology, according to epistemology, the study of how we attain knowledge.

okey dokey. You have to reject science in vague and unarticulated terms, because you do not have the capacity to use precision or articulate things coherently. For a long time I thought you were just too lazy to do that, but I have come around to the opinion that while you are very lazy, you are in fact too stupid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are copying Maturin, which makes you a liar too. I do not rely on so many Holocaust deniers.

Ok, I'll leave that up to others to decide for themselves. You have cited a whole lot of Holocaust deniers, though.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans is right and it's true that dogs cannot recognize their owner, it is anything but trivial and does support the assertions that they are intended to advance. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read the book.

Now this - this is interesting. I have, of course, read the Authentic Text as well as your Corrupted Text. Indeed, I am the preeminent expert in the actual writings of Seymour Lessans.

I am curious, peacegirl - have you yet figured out why that is? Like, why would I spend time and energy reading your dad's idiot nonsense babble at all? I obviously do not respect them as having any intellectual value whatsoever. Why would I even bother with coming up with the whole conceit that I am True Steward of the Authentic Text? Has this come together for you yet? It is somewhat related to this conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Uh, no - there's a bunch more. Right after this one.

None of them so far are replicated. They are all hypothesizing different things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, they say it suggests, dogs are likely... These words do not represent confidence.

Originally Posted by Chuck

No, peacegirl - this is a thing I think you don't understand about science. Experiments provide evidence that tends to show that a hypothesis is or is not true.

And there is a confidence level that they use to determine the probability of whether the statistical significance is really that significant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was a suggestion based on very little evidence of anything. A fixation? Where is the replication? Try harder next time Chuck.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, did you even read the abstract?

I did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, this experiment is so vague, and you call this scientific? I'd like to see the actual study, and I'd like to see how they determine what they're claiming. By active choice, approach and touch? Obviously, they trained the dog to touch one of the photos in order to get a reward. Where is the replication Chuck? The error rate is off the charts.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, you have no idea what the "error rate" (? have no idea what you even mean by this) is. This is exactly what I mean when I say "when confronted with actual science and data, you simply reject it on vague, unarticulated terms."

I know that they calculate an error rate due to random sampling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This again is so vague, it proves nothing. Instances where dogs approached their owners with a higher frequency than predicted by chance were considered evidence of recognition. What does that even mean? What determines how many times a dog goes to one picture to be considered more than just chance? Where is the cut-off point and who determines this. This whole thing is a crock.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, you could find all that and more if you actually read the article. Here is the whole thing for you to read but I warn you it is longer than a YouTube video description, so I doubt you will read it.

I will do that. I am still curious as to why they don't videotape the experiment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not reject vague, unarticulated terms. I trust actual science and data, and astute observation is part of scientific methodology, according to epistemology, the study of how we attain knowledge.

Originally Posted by Chuck

okey dokey. You have to reject science in vague and unarticulated terms, because you do not have the capacity to use precision or articulate things coherently. For a long time I thought you were just too lazy to do that, but I have come around to the opinion that while you are very lazy, you are in fact too stupid.

You have too high of an opinion of yourself to believe you know anything about me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are copying Maturin, which makes you a liar too. I do not rely on so many Holocaust deniers.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Ok, I'll leave that up to others to decide for themselves. You have cited a whole lot of Holocaust deniers, though.

I haven't in awhile because I realized I could find the same article from other sources. I am not a Holocaust denier.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans is right and it's true that dogs cannot recognize their owner, it is anything but trivial and does support the assertions that they are intended to advance. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read the book.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Now this - this is interesting. I have, of course, read the Authentic Text as well as your Corrupted Text. Indeed, I am the preeminent expert in the actual writings of Seymour Lessans.

Originally Posted by Chuck

I am curious, peacegirl - have you yet figured out why that is? Like, why would I spend time and energy reading your dad's idiot nonsense babble at all? I obviously do not respect them as having any intellectual value whatsoever. Why would I even bother with coming up with the whole conceit that I am True Steward of the Authentic Text? Has this come together for you yet? It is somewhat related to this conversation.

You know nothing about the book except what you have purposely taken out of context. You have no understanding whatsoever due to the fact that you made up your mind to use it as lulz. It's your loss.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know nothing about the book except what you have purposely taken out of context. You have no understanding whatsoever due to the fact that you made up your mind to use it as lulz. It's your loss.

Ok, but peacegirl, why? I mean, yes, obviously your dad's idiot nonsense babble is full of hilariously stupid shit. Even your Corrupted Text is replete with laughably ridiculous material that was thoroughly mined before I even took notice. But why did I even bother going to the extra effort of becoming the True Steward of the Authentic Text? Do you have any theories? Are you even curious?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, but peacegirl, why? I mean, yes, obviously your dad's idiot nonsense babble is full of hilariously stupid shit. Even your Corrupted Text is replete with laughably ridiculous material that was thoroughly mined before I even took notice. But why did I even bother going to the extra effort of becoming the True Steward of the Authentic Text? Do you have any theories?

You think I compiled his work for money. You think I corrupted his book because I changed the wording, or took out what I believed would be laughed at by those who are ignorant. You have proved that I was right. And yes, it would be great if I made money. I could then pay for professionals in many fields to study this book. I think you actually believe your delusions that you are a true steward. The fact that you call his work idiot nonsense babble is very revealing. Mining material is exactly that. It is searching for anything that you can laugh at. Go for it. Like I said, it's your loss.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[You think I compiled his work for money. You think I corrupted his book because I changed the wording, or took out what I believed would be laughed at by those who are ignorant. You have proved that I was right. And yes, it would be great if I made money. I could then pay for professionals in many fields to study this book. I think you actually believe your delusions that you are a true steward. The fact that you call his work idiot nonsense babble is very revealing. Mining material is exactly that. It is searching for anything that you can laugh at. Go for it. Like I said, it's your loss.

peacegirl, I don't care that you hacked up his work and try to sell it. What difference does that make? You obviously aren't selling books, and have just thrown money away having your nonsense printed, which is somewhat comical in itself. The whole "hawking for lucre" line is a convenient tool for me in my True Stewardship, but does nothing to explain why I would go to the effort of developing my expertise in the works of Seymour Lessans as written by him and published in his lifetime. Neither do I need to look to the Authentic Text to find things to laugh at. It is extremely rich in hilarious material, but your Corrupted Text has enough nonsense in it to entertain for a very long time. But I went back to look at what Lessans actually wrote. Why would I bother doing that? Have you never wondered this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why did my son's dog (who is a smart breed) not recognize him even though she went crazy when she smelled him?

Do you "go crazy" when you see a photograph of a loved-one? No? Then, by your own bizarre "logic," you can't recognize a photograph of a loved-one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's nothing to explain. Either Lessans was right, or he wasn't. You believe that light from a Supernovae is lightyears away and we finally get to see it when the light has traveled this long distance. If Lessans is right, the explosion of a Supernovae can be so huge that that we would be able to see it with the naked eye, or with a telescope as it is happening. You already knew what I was going to say Spacemonkey. We've been over this a thousand times. Why harp on it if you're positive Lessans was wrong? Let it go.

You haven't explained how far away you think supernovae really are, or how this has any bearing on us supposedly being able to see them in real time. Unless the distance is actually zero it is still going to take time for any light to get from the supernova to our eye.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where that's a problem.

Of course it isn't a problem, because your silly ideas are just wrong. But are you changing the story again and now X-rays arrive instantly (wherever) too?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I trust actual science and data...

Please stop lying, Peacegirl. You are explicitly rejecting real science and data right now, purely because it doesn't agree with what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Experiments can be done, and it's not that difficult.

They have been done. Dozens of them all consistently showing the same thing, and not a single experiment anywhere supports what you and your father have claimed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, I don't care that you hacked up his work and try to sell it. What difference does that make? You obviously aren't selling books, and have just thrown money away having your nonsense printed, which is somewhat comical in itself.

I have not thrown away money. Again, you're making stuff up based on your very prejudiced viewpoint. The fact that I'm not selling books is not for the reasons you think. You are making it appear that because I'm not selling books must be due to the fact that the book has no value, which is quite the opposite. And you call your reasoning good logic? What you're doing is similar to the antics of a slick prosecutor who knows how to twist a case in his favor whether the facts are true or not. Bottom line: I have very little advertising budget. People don't know about the book, so how can they buy it? The people who do know about the book are mostly people in here, who have been brainwashed by you.

Originally Posted by Chuck

The whole "hawking for lucre" line is a convenient tool for me in my True Stewardship, but does nothing to explain why I would go to the effort of developing my expertise in the works of Seymour Lessans as written by him and published in his lifetime. Neither do I need to look to the Authentic Text to find things to laugh at. It is extremely rich in hilarious material,

It is easy to find funny excerpts in the extension, but not in the first three chapters. He wanted to include some comic relief but you wouldn't know that because you have decided to jump ahead. That's exactly what he urged people not to do, but did you listen? Would you laugh at any well-known philosopher before studying the actual text? No, you wouldn't. You are doing this because you believe this book doesn't fall into that category, so you justify the laughter. But you won't get the last laugh, trust me.

Preface

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read
thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the
table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner.
Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could
appear like a fairy tale otherwise the statement that truth is stranger
than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by
yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical
relations.

Originally Posted by Chuck

but your Corrupted Text has enough nonsense in it to entertain for a very long time.

Like what? I'm sure you're doing the same thing; mining for anything that you would find humorous if taken out of context.

Originally Posted by Chuck

But I went back to look at what Lessans actually wrote.

So did I, and what you went back to are the funny parts or ways to make them funny. That gives you fodder to make fun of and laugh at what you don't understand. It's a very easy thing to do if that's your goal.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Why would I bother doing that? Have you never wondered this?

You have no idea what his first discovery is even about. What are the three forms of first blow Chuck? You are trying to make my compilation look phony, but it isn't. Adding a few sentences, or changing a word that does not alter the meaning of the concept, is trivial. It has no bearing on the validity of his discoveries. My alterations do not contaminate the true meaning of the book, unlike your ridiculous interpretation. You are working overtime to discredit Lessans' 30 year work. But you won't be able to because truth always wins in the long run.

[Spacemonkey]

Stop lying, Peacegirl.