Revolution in Thought

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t do my way, and distill the info into a few words, I am too busy to give you the time of day. It’s sad to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clearer in is it’s explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read what I’m sharing but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are so positive we have free will.

The author is laboriously discovering and longwindedly explaining ideas that have already been explained by better writers than he. This is one of the benefits of higher education; that the graduate is familiar with ideas and is experienced in communicating them. I'm not surprised that the author failed to get a lot of interest. Was the book 's publication financed by himself?

Belinda it is you that is acting like a big shot. You haven’t read a word if his 30 year work and now you’re an authority?

You not I said that I was an authority. I have read to about the middle of Chapter 2 which is a measure of my perseverance.

[-1-]

I have an audio of the first chapter, if you'd like to hear the author speak. I converted a tape he recorded in the 1970s to an mp3.

So the first chapter was written four decades ago. And I bet the author was not ildly sitting on his manuscript; I suspect he was sending it to publishers left, right, and centre.

The publishers did not like it. Why should I?

The author is laboriously discovering and longwindedly explaining ideas that have already been explained by better writers than he. This is one of the benefits of higher education; that the graduate is familiar with ideas and is experienced in communicating them. I'm not surprised that the author failed to get a lot of interest. Was the book 's publication financed by himself?

This what Belinda wrote may be precisely why publishers rejected the MS.

There are other problems with your selling process:

Well accept this as an exception. It almost feels like a stand-off. If you don’t do my way, and distill the info into a few words, I am too busy to give you the time of day. It’s sad to think that because I don’t do it your way, you refuse to read a few pages that would be much clearer in is it’s explanation than me trying to satisfy you by offering snippets. If it’s too hard for you because it’s not entertaining enough, as I already said, don’t read what I’m sharing but then don’t tell how wrong the author was because you are so positive we have free will.

It may be sad, but it may be joyful as well, saving us a lot of grief. Our chances at this point are precisely 50-50 that it's a worthwhile reading or crap reading.

That is not good risk for committing to read 600 pages or even 3 chapters.

Since YOU read it, and can't say anything good about it other than that it's "good", we can't believe you. If there were anything good about the book that stood out, you would be able to tell us what it is.

Thirdly, I am not even sure if I can trust your judgment. Your English is poor. Written English. Not a criticism, but just stating a fact. I don't judge you for your English; but I judge your ability to tell what's good and what's not good based on your English correspondence.

Fourthly, you say "I am too busy to give you the time of day." I assume it's "too busy" for "writing a one-page review or summary or blurb". I can't believe you are too busy for that, for you spent much more time writing to us on the forum here than the time that should have taken to write a blurb on the book. This to me tells me that you either did not understand the book, or else you understood it and there is no outstanding or remarkable idea in the book. It's not the lack of time you can't write to us the idea inside the book; it's the lack of ideas inside the book or your inability (not proven, just saying) to get the idea.

Why did you undertake the onus of trying to sell this book? You are not a literary agent. Is it your father who had authored the book?

[peacegirl]

What you are saying is a syllogism which has no truth if the premise is false, which it is.

And what you are saying by rejecting the truth-value of my premise is that I am unable to decide for myself whether any of your ideas are valuable to me.

Alas. I have no time or patience to debate (yet another) dogmatic Aristotelian.

I thought we were clear that you should not take anymore off your valuable time trying to see if this discovery is the true gem in the midst of so many false leads. I understand your skepticism but stop making it seem like it’s my fault for trying to share what I know is true and could help the world immensely. Have a great day!

[-1-]

For fidelity to the material you are obligated to provide more cause to read than, "cause I say so."

Please pay heed to this, peacegirl. You can't sell a cat in a bag.

If you can't write a summary or other selling vehicle that is convincing, or you won't, due to lack of time, then I suggest that you pay someone who can and will, and get this hurdle over with.

Also, please, answer this, I beg you: is the book written by a person whose moniker on this site is "prof"?

[surreptitious57]

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... 1553953304

[-1-]

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... 1553953304

Thanks, Surrpetitious57. Now we are getting somewhere:

This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations. The scientific discovery was made in 1959 by a self-learned man who after many years of intense study observed a universal principle never perceived before. Stumbling upon such an important finding, it was difficult for him to comprehend the magnitude of what he had uncovered. It took him many more years to transcribe his revelation into book format so it could be understood by others. When it came time to get his work published he was turned down because he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles. Sadly, he died in obscurity in1991, at the age of 72. Until today, his work has never been given a careful review, nor has it been widely distributed. This discovery has far-reaching implications for today's world because it prevents the conditions that lead to hurt and retaliation in human relations. For the very first time we are able to get a glimpse of a new world where there will be no war, crime, or hatred between man and man. The author made a prediction that the Golden Age would become a reality in the 20th century. Unfortunately, this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the leading scientists of his time who could have validated his findings. Now more than ever before it is imperative that this natural law be investigated and brought to light, for the world is on the brink of a major disaster. We cannot afford to sit idly by and let others take the lead in this important investigation; otherwise, this discovery could be lost for another century. God has given mankind the basic blueprint. It is now up to us to apply...

So why could you, peacegirl, not publish this here? This is pretty good. Only a moron would not think of doing this. Not that you are a moron, peacegirl, but this is what we precisely were begging you to do, and you hard-nosed us, instead of providing the easiest and most obvious solution.

One only can scratch his head.

About the content:

I am skeptical already... wars are not caused by hate... and most criminal activity involves no hate or evil.

Most criminals who are in jail hit someone with their cars when they were driving. That is not an act of hate. Most other criminals steal stuff or deal drugs... again, not an act of hate, but an act of economic necessity or economic preference. So the fall of evil will not stop these crimes, contrary to the author's claim.

Wars are started out of unsettled diplomatic negotiations. Mostly about resources that are scarce and not available freely to all who need it or want it. Most wars have nothing to do with hate, but with greed and with dire supplies for survival.

[-1-]

Also, please, answer this, I beg you: is the book written by a person whose moniker on this site is "prof"?

I guess you don't need to bother with this any more.

But you could have extended the polite and civil gesture of answering it the first time I asked.

[Logik]

I am skeptical already... wars are not caused by hate... and most criminal activity involves no hate or evil.

Even if it were "hate and evil". And it were in a nice, little, ribbon-wrapped glass box (so that we can all see it and don't have to spend 2 milenia trying to define it).

The very next question that ought to follow is: How do you increase da peace and eliminate da hate, yo?

Any ideas? No?

Thanks for nothing.

[-1-]

I am skeptical already... wars are not caused by hate... and most criminal activity involves no hate or evil.

Even if it were "hate and evil". And it were in a nice, little, ribbon-wrapped glass box (so that we can all see it and don't have to spend 2 milenia trying to define it).

The very next question that ought to follow is: How do you increase da peace and eliminate da hate, yo?

Any ideas? No?

Thanks for nothing.

For the green part: Read the goddamned book, you. It's all in there.

For the reddish part:

For the black part: Sorry, but you are jumping into conclusions. In all honesty, you can't say that with a clear conscience without FIRST reading the book.

[peacegirl]

Also, please, answer this, I beg you: is the book written by a person whose moniker on this site is "prof"?

I guess you don't need to bother with this any more.

But you could have extended the polite and civil gesture of answering it the first time I asked.

I am trying to answer all questions. I'm not here every second of the day, and I may have missed your particular question. Aren't you jumping to the conclusion that I didn't answer because I purposely passed over it? This goes to show how often people make presumptions.

[peacegirl]

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... 1553953304

Thanks, Surrpetitious57. Now we are getting somewhere:

This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations. The scientific discovery was made in 1959 by a self-learned man who after many years of intense study observed a universal principle never perceived before. Stumbling upon such an important finding, it was difficult for him to comprehend the magnitude of what he had uncovered. It took him many more years to transcribe his revelation into book format so it could be understood by others. When it came time to get his work published he was turned down because he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles. Sadly, he died in obscurity in1991, at the age of 72. Until today, his work has never been given a careful review, nor has it been widely distributed. This discovery has far-reaching implications for today's world because it prevents the conditions that lead to hurt and retaliation in human relations. For the very first time we are able to get a glimpse of a new world where there will be no war, crime, or hatred between man and man. The author made a prediction that the Golden Age would become a reality in the 20th century. Unfortunately, this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the leading scientists of his time who could have validated his findings. Now more than ever before it is imperative that this natural law be investigated and brought to light, for the world is on the brink of a major disaster. We cannot afford to sit idly by and let others take the lead in this important investigation; otherwise, this discovery could be lost for another century. God has given mankind the basic blueprint. It is now up to us to apply...

So why could you, peacegirl, not publish this here? This is pretty good. Only a moron would not think of doing this. Not that you are a moron, peacegirl, but this is what we precisely were begging you to do, and you hard-nosed us, instead of providing the easiest and most obvious solution.

One only can scratch his head.

No, this does not say much. I've already explained what this knowledge can do, but people aren't satisfied. They want me to give a short synopsis that contains more meat in just two sentences. I cannot do that.

About the content:

I am skeptical already... wars are not caused by hate... and most criminal activity involves no hate or evil.

Most criminals who are in jail hit someone with their cars when they were driving. That is not an act of hate. Most other criminals steal stuff or deal drugs... again, not an act of hate, but an act of economic necessity or economic preference. So the fall of evil will not stop these crimes, contrary to the author's claim.

You are doing the same thing everybody else is doing. You are jumping to a premature conclusion because you are using yourself as someone who knows more than the author. You are turning into a mini god that knows there is nothing that can be done to make our world better. It's a huge stumbling block for the author.

Wars are started out of unsettled diplomatic negotiations. Mostly about resources that are scarce and not available freely to all who need it or want it. Most wars have nothing to do with hate, but with greed and with dire supplies for survival.

Take away the word 'hate'. You are correct that people hurt others because they are often in a dire situation, and the only solution is to hurt others as the lesser of two evils. Stop acting like you know what the author has discovered, and take the time to understand his words, otherwise, this is a waste of time.

[Logik]

*tsk*tsk*tsk*

Such intellect! Figured out how to fix the world's problems.

Couldn't figure out marketing.

[henry quirk]

PG,

You insist folks have to read the text 'as is' to get it; others want a synopsis of sorts to help them decide if they wanna invest time readin' the text.

Obviously, you know the text frontwards and backwards, yeah? Why not write up the equivalent of a wikipedia entry? You might go five or ten or fifteen pages. Certainly such a treatment could convey the gist of your dad's ideas (not fully, but as a preview). Such a synopsis would satisfy the investment-reluctant and allow you move forward in promoting the work.

[peacegirl]

*tsk*tsk*tsk*

Such intellect! Figured out how to fix the world's problems.

Couldn't figure out marketing.

Why are you people so arrogant? I am taken aback by the foolhardy comments that presuppose the author is guilty of something. Hey, pitch in and I will gladly market the hell out of this book.

[Logik]

Why are you people so arrogant? I am taken aback by the foolhardy comments that presuppose the author is guilty of something. Hey, pitch in and I will gladly market the hell out of this book.

See henry's comment above.

You approach to selling this is all-or-nothing.

You expect me to buy the book (pay money), read the book (spend time) to decide if it was worth my while.
And if it wasn't - you probably won't refund me!

I asked you for the elevator pitch. Sell me this book!

Hint: by calling me arrogant you are going in the wrong direction.

Also see Henry's advice above.