Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6701  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!
The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.
That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true.
Reply With Quote
  #6702  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:04 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Someone is offering a used copy on Amazon, so someone must have purchased it... :chin:
Maybe that is K. Green trying to get some of his money back :)
Reply With Quote
  #6703  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:06 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!
The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.
That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true.
Point a: whatever you are talking about, it is not a mirror image. They do not work that way.

Point b: that means that it IS a contradiction of causality, which means the book contradicts itself.
Reply With Quote
  #6704  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:08 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #6705  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
A bright light flashes and you tell me there's no light at the object?
There is no "object" for the light to be "surrounding" when the image is created, and there is only a shadow on the wall after the person casting it has left the area, the shadow can be still be seen and photographed after the person has walked away.

Quote:
What do you mean no lenses? Doesn't the camera have a lens?
There is no camera. There is a light, a person, and a wall. You stand in front of the wall, the light flashes, you walk away from the wall and your shadow remains as it was against the wall.

You can photograph the shadow if you wish, it is frozen on the wall as if painted on there. But it is not an image created with a camera or lens.

Quote:
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
That, to me, would be similar to a mirror image on water. There is no lens involved, but I don't think you can get a still photograph without some form of lens.

Picture This – Mountain Mirror Image – Sawatch Range, Colorado
Reply With Quote
  #6706  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.
LadyShea, picture that you're looking at an large object in space, and picture the (P) reflected light at your retina. That's the physical location. Your retina or the film interacts with the (P) light as you focus on the object. If the camera is focused on an object but the objects surrounding it are not in focus, that is the mirror image that will be at the film. Some of the photograph will be in focus and some of it will be blurred.
Reply With Quote
  #6707  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!
The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.
That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true.
Point a: whatever you are talking about, it is not a mirror image. They do not work that way.

Point b: that means that it IS a contradiction of causality, which means the book contradicts itself.
What we get is an upside down mirror image on the light sensitive cones and rods, or on the light sensitive film or pixels. When I say mirror image I mean there is no space where photons travel when we're looking at the world in real time. This is in no way a contradiction of causality.
Reply With Quote
  #6708  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:15 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Here's a nice comment about peacegirl just in at the Baut board:

Quote:
I got trapped for an hour or so browsing some old threads she had started on other forums. Going back 10 years, she obviously had absolutely no idea at all about how light or cameras work (now she is merely very confused). Someone at that time tried to use the idea of bouncing a laser off the moon and the fact it took 1.5 seconds to get there but we couldn't see the reflected light fr another 1.5 seconds. At the time she just said something about not knowing what a laser was. I wonder if its worth trying that argument again?

Otherwise, I thought LadyShea(?) was on the right track trying to get her to admit that photons actually had to travel to the camera before an image could be formed. But the way she was dodging that was like she didn't want to think about it too hard in case it challenged her beliefs. A bit like people being in denial about loss of a physical or mental function - they will go to great lengths to create stories to explain away the fact they can't do things. Or can do something in the case of blindsight. (Hmmm... I wonder what she would make of blindsight? "There, that proves I am right" probably.)
I assured him we tried the laser bouncing off the moon thing; he does not realize that Peacegirl is nuts.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6709  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:15 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
That, to me, would be similar to a mirror image on water. There is no lens involved, but I don't think you can get a still photograph without some form of lens.

Picture This – Mountain Mirror Image – Sawatch Range, Colorado
I just gave you a counterexample. A hologram is a still photograph (on steroids), you get stunning pictures, and there is no lens involved at all.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-27-2012), LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6710  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:35 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!
The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.
That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true.
Point a: whatever you are talking about, it is not a mirror image. They do not work that way.

Point b: that means that it IS a contradiction of causality, which means the book contradicts itself.
What we get is an upside down mirror image on the light sensitive cones and rods, or on the light sensitive film or pixels. When I say mirror image I mean there is no space where photons travel when we're looking at the world in real time. This is in no way a contradiction of causality.
I am afraid that without photons travelling, nothing is causing the image, which is a contradiction of causality. This is a simple fact: it is practically the definition of a contradiction of causality.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6711  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:45 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.
I am sure her "mirror image" is in some sentence that Lessans wrote in his book. Other than that, it has no connection to reality, just like peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #6712  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:49 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.
LadyShea, picture that you're looking at an large object in space, and picture the (P) reflected light at your retina. That's the physical location. Your retina or the film interacts with the (P) light as you focus on the object.
What you are offering is teleportation to the retina or camera film. That is not plausible nor do you offer any explanation as to how this magic happens.

Unless the mirror image is made of matter and actually exists as or in a physical location in space, it cannot be physically interacted with by photons, and therefore cannot explain how we can photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth.
Reply With Quote
  #6713  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:51 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
A very long time ago I mistakenly took a photography class given by the art school. It was a good course, but just not for me. The very first assignments were to create images without a camera with just light, print paper and our imaginations.

An image is what people see as an image and does not have to correspond to a photograph in the usual sense. Also if you get your digital photos printed at a high quality printer, all those printers use color photo paper and print with light. The image is just pixels. No object.

But none of this matters. Peacegirl is out of her mind. You might as well try to get a horse to sing as try to get her to understand any of this.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-27-2012), LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6714  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:00 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
A very long time ago I mistakenly took a photography class given by the art school. It was a good course, but just not for me. The very first assignments were to create images without a camera with just light, print paper and our imaginations.

An image is what people see as an image and does not have to correspond to a photograph in the usual sense. Also if you get your digital photos printed at a high quality printer, all those printers use color photo paper and print with light. The image is just pixels. No object.

But none of this matters. Peacegirl is out of her mind. You might as well try to get a horse to sing as try to get her to understand any of this.
&feature=related
Reply With Quote
  #6715  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:05 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

This is even better,

&feature=related
Reply With Quote
  #6716  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
That, to me, would be similar to a mirror image on water. There is no lens involved, but I don't think you can get a still photograph without some form of lens.

Picture This – Mountain Mirror Image – Sawatch Range, Colorado
I just gave you a counterexample. A hologram is a still photograph (on steroids), you get stunning pictures, and there is no lens involved at all.
You're missing the point. In order to see a hologram you need the lens of your eye. In order to take a picture of a hologram, you need the lens of a camera. Everything that is seen requires a lens, unless it's a lower organism that uses light in a different way.
Reply With Quote
  #6717  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:08 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
It's got nothing to do with quoting people.
Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing
Lessans knew that his clarification would mean a lot once he's gone. I think you are trying in every possible way to discredit him because you think he's wrong, plain and simple. :sadcheer:

WTF are you talking about?

It's very odd to say the words "quote" and "unquote" to announce clarification or elaboration when speaking or reading or aloud . Most people would say "To clarify...." or "To elaborate..." or "To reiterate...." or use their inflection for emphasis or just communicate clearly in the first place.

I have never heard of someone saying the words "quote" and "unquote" except for actual quotations. It's strange
So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.
peacegirl, you're supposed to be the editor of this so-called book and this is something the editor would fix. If they wanted to create passages with emphasis they would make selections of fonts, faces, sizes, weights to aid the reader in identifying those sections that are presented with emphasis. An editor would know that you only use quotes when you are quoting someone else other than the author or separating dialog from narrative. Unless Lessans was pretending to be Lessans in the book (which is entirely possible given how batshit crazy the Lessans appear to be) then quotes are not appropriate.

So did you only make it to the eighth grade?
Reply With Quote
  #6718  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:10 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

You're still dishonestly ignoring all of my questions. I wonder why that is. I suspect it is because you are mentally ill.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #6719  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.
LadyShea, picture that you're looking at an large object in space, and picture the (P) reflected light at your retina. That's the physical location. Your retina or the film interacts with the (P) light as you focus on the object.
What you are offering is teleportation to the retina or camera film. That is not plausible nor do you offer any explanation as to how this magic happens.

Unless the mirror image is made of matter and actually exists as or in a physical location in space, it cannot be physically interacted with by photons, and therefore cannot explain how we can photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth.
A mirror image is not matter. The only thing that is interacting with the film/retina is light. I am really getting tired of this discussion. People can take it or leave it. It's fine with me. I wonder if anyone wants to discuss the other discovery, or are we done?
Reply With Quote
  #6720  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:12 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I for one would love to hear about how we are going to be reincarnated because of pronouns.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (01-27-2012), Spacemonkey (01-27-2012), Stephen Maturin (01-27-2012)
  #6721  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
It's got nothing to do with quoting people.
Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing
Lessans knew that his clarification would mean a lot once he's gone. I think you are trying in every possible way to discredit him because you think he's wrong, plain and simple. :sadcheer:

WTF are you talking about?

It's very odd to say the words "quote" and "unquote" to announce clarification or elaboration when speaking or reading or aloud . Most people would say "To clarify...." or "To elaborate..." or "To reiterate...." or use their inflection for emphasis or just communicate clearly in the first place.

I have never heard of someone saying the words "quote" and "unquote" except for actual quotations. It's strange
So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.
peacegirl, you're supposed to be the editor of this so-called book and this is something the editor would fix. If they wanted to create passages with emphasis they would make selections of fonts, faces, sizes, weights to aid the reader in identifying those sections that are presented with emphasis. An editor would know that you only use quotes when you are quoting someone else other than the author or separating dialog from narrative. Unless Lessans was pretending to be Lessans in the book (which is entirely possible given how batshit crazy the Lessans appear to be) then quotes are not appropriate.

So did you only make it to the eighth grade?
We're discussing an audio book NA.
Reply With Quote
  #6722  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:13 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?
The Amazon review was from an IIDB poster who read the online version. It was not from any actual sale.
Spacemonkey was right. This guy did not read the book.
I didn't say that he didn't read it. I said that he didn't buy it.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #6723  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:16 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But that's the problem. It appears that there could be no other alternate model, but there is and it also is backed up by observation if you care to look.
You don't have a model yet.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #6724  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I for one would love to hear about how we are going to be reincarnated because of pronouns.
No way am I going to open this can of worms. This third discovery is based on presentism, so there would be tons of anger being spewed, and I'm not up for it.
Reply With Quote
  #6725  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But that's the problem. It appears that there could be no other alternate model, but there is and it also is backed up by observation if you care to look.
You don't have a model yet.
What I offered is all I have, so if it's not up to speed, I'm sorry. :(
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.28147 seconds with 15 queries