A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So why on Earth are you criticizing others for not returning to a topic that you refuse to discuss? Do you have any idea how crazy that is?

You're right. For a second I forgot that there's nothing to discuss.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no reason to think this quote was not accurate, and I certainly wanted to give credit to the person whose quotation it was. I could have left his name out, but that wouldn't have been right.

Citation and sourcing is much more than putting a name to a quote. Neither you nor Lessans uses citations or sourcing at all, the book doesn't have a source index, footnotes, references chapter, or bibliography of any kind. I have never seen a purportedly non-fiction book so lacking in anything resembling scholarship.

You don't even personally know what all books Lessans read that he used to make his "observations" and draw his conclusions!

Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.

What main topic? The one you refuse to discuss?

[davidm]

Oh, and everyone read the book. Its claim are all wrong, as we have repeatedly demonstrated.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
I'm answering people's questions Spacemonkey, but not the ones that are going to cause an uproar.

They didn't read the book.

Well here are 2 lies, Peacegirl is not answering questions, she is evading them. People have read the book, how else could they critique it, in detail.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. For a second I forgot that there's nothing to discuss.

Now this is hard to believe, Peacegirl is admiting that there is nothing substative in the book.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

[The Sacred Text's] claim[s] are all wrong, as we have repeatedly demonstrated.

Seriously? Does that mean we're going to have the same percentages of fat chicks and gay homosexuals even after free will and blame are permanently removed as conditions of the environment? Man, what a ripoff.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Citation and sourcing is much more than putting a name to a quote. Neither you nor Lessans uses citations or sourcing at all, the book doesn't have a source index, footnotes, references chapter, or bibliography of any kind. I have never seen a purportedly non-fiction book so lacking in anything resembling scholarship.

You don't even personally know what all books Lessans read that he used to make his "observations" and draw his conclusions!

Oh my gosh, that is like you citing all of the people who contributed to the person you are now. You are asking the impossible LadyShea, but you don't realize it, so I'm really not mad at you.

Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What main topic? The one you refuse to discuss?

Yes, but what I don't understand is if people think this is all bullshit, why are they responding? Just to play games with me? I really am at a loss. I realize that the second I stop responding, it's over, but that doesn't explain the people who are responding. Go figure. Life is confusing to say the least.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Seriously? Does that mean we're going to have the same percentages of fat chicks and gay homosexuals even after free will and blame are permanently removed as conditions of the environment? Man, what a ripoff.

Stephen, I really think your mean streak comes from somewhere in your past. I have no desire to analyze you but deep down I believe you like the idea that there will be no more lawyers in the new world because you know what a creep you are and how you are able to fool everyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well here are 2 lies, Peacegirl is not answering questions, she is evading them. People have read the book, how else could they critique it, in detail.

There is no *#($& critique. That shows me how far we've come.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and everyone read the book. Its claim are all wrong, as we have repeatedly demonstrated.

David, sorry but you have demonstrated nothing. You are just repeating the very same premise that is being challenged. Nothing to write home about.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no *#($& critique. That shows me how far we've come.

peacegirl, in your state of mental illness you couldn't tell how far anyone has come, even if we repeated it to you a MILLION times. You are just that sick.

We've read the book, we judged the book, we read your quotes of the book, we judged the quotes and the book, we saw your mental confusion and ignorance over what was in the book and we judged you, the quotes, and the book.

We did this at least a hundred times. You've repeated yourself at least a hundred times, and we've repeated back at least a hundred times.

If I didn't know just how ill you were I'd swear I was witnessing a comedy act worthy of Kaufman, Martin or Cohen.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen, I really think ...

It is painfully obvious that you have never once really thought about anything. Please don't try now, as making such an attempt so late in life would only result in hospitalization for you (at taxpayer expense, no doubt).

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, sorry but you have demonstrated nothing. You are just repeating the very same premise that is being challenged. Nothing to write home about.

So, the fact that we see in delayed time is a premise, eh? And you want to dispute that premise? Then explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time! All of this is easily demonstrated!

Assplain it for us, Your Royal Highness!

Oh, wait, yes, I know: It's just circumstantial; another of your so-called explanations was, something else must be going on there.

And you wonder why people think you're nuts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It is painfully obvious that you have never once really thought about anything. Please don't try now, as making such an attempt so late in life would only result in hospitalization for you (at taxpayer expense, no doubt).

Give it up Stephen. I still like your bald head.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, that is like you citing all of the people who contributed to the person you are now. You are asking the impossible LadyShea, but you don't realize it, so I'm really not mad at you.

Unfortunately, most people who expect to be taken seriously academically need to do things like produce a bibliography and cite references. Lessans let you down on that measure.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Someone is a few bricks shy of a load. Their elevator doesn't go all the way up. Their light bulb is a much lower wattage than everyone elses. Their soda has lost it's fizz.

You left out "not playing with a full deck" and "has one wheel in the sand".

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You left out "not playing with a full deck" and "has one wheel in the sand".

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[davidm]

peacegirl, I'm afraid you don't just get to declare that entire fields of well-established science with evidentiary support dating back hundreds of years are mere "premises" that are not better than your father's insane "premises."

Your father was an ignoramus who didn't know anything about science. So he got it all wrong. No matter where you go and what you do, that is always the same answer you will hear for the rest of your life: he got it wrong. Four words, end of story.

[Angakuk]

Peacegirl,
Pay no attention to these nattering nabobs of negativity. Keep posting. Reading your posts and the responses to them help to fill the endless lonely hours of my sad, empty and meaningless life.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You left out "not playing with a full deck" and "has one wheel in the sand".

Also "a few fries short of a Happy Meal" and "a sandwich or two shy of a picnic."

But hey, you know what they say -- the squeaky stitch gets the nine grease-wheel.

[LadyShea]

Oh my gosh, that is like you citing all of the people who contributed to the person you are now. You are asking the impossible LadyShea, but you don't realize it, so I'm really not mad at you

You know what other non-fiction books don't have citations and references? Religious works.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no *#($& critique. That shows me how far we've come.

Damn, and I really thought I was on 'Pretend Ignore'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Seriously? Does that mean we're going to have the same percentages of fat chicks and gay homosexuals even after free will and blame are permanently removed as conditions of the environment? Man, what a ripoff.

NO, it just means that you are still going to be able to blame them for not making good choices.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, that is like you citing all of the people who contributed to the person you are now. You are asking the impossible LadyShea, but you don't realize it, so I'm really not mad at you.

Hmmm, citing the books read is not in the same category as remembering everyone who has influenced your life, that is quite a leap for anyone. But Lessans did read "The Decline and Fall Of the Roman Empire" 7 times, must have had a hard time understanding all the words, he wore out several dictionaries in the process. Perhaps English was a second language, considering the way he redefined words to suit himself. Did he even have a first language?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just to play games with me?

Do you finally 'get it', or is that too much to ask?