New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not saying anyone is to blame. But no one in all these years actually read the book in its entirety, the way it was meant to be read, rather than pulling excerpts out of context for the purpose of lulz.

And all you have done is wring your weak little hands.

If I understand something, I can put it into other words, because that's sort of how it works to understand things. If you can only repeat the original text, you are missing something yourself. You bring nothing to the table, you present no additional context, you don't help anyone to make whatever leap of understanding they are missing. You are a passenger.

You're completely off the mark. I do understand things. I even added some examples of my own.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it refers to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to show how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

Utterly trivial, not even making an attempt at the real issue. You say this stuff is misunderstood by apparently everyone except yourself in the world?

Make a useful effort to explain it then. Something isn't getting through apparently, and you should be able to do more about that. Instead you whine that nobody is being nice enough to the material.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.



You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness or strength is different.

All you do is whine about not being understood, but given the opportunity to put work into it, you cry about how unfair that is to you. You are not "incredibly strong", but it is not surprising to see you award yourself that medal.

I really don't get the resentment. I came to share something important, which you all won't allow yourselves to read. It's really sad.

I just think you are a pathetic whiny nobody. You say you want to share something important, and that it is made up these amazing insights, supported by perfect argument. Expand meaningfully on it then. If you understand it, find ways to express it other than pasting the same text again. Explain the argument more clearly, separate the premises from conclusions so that people can make clear links where apparently we aren't getting it at present.

Or, do the exact same failing shit every day until you die, always complaining because everyone else in the world is letting you down. But don't forget to congratulate yourself for being so strong while you do that.

If there really is some perfect gold in all this Lessans nonsense, it is a terrible shame that the person carrying the torch has to be somebody with as little mojo as yourself.

[accelafine]

Oh look at the 'kind' wokie, the one who is always accusing others of having 'personality disorders' (but only if they are women of course)

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh look at the 'kind' wokie, the one who is always accusing others of having 'personality disorders' (but only if they are women of course)

Who are these other women I have accused of personality disorders? You obviously have one, it's all consuming. But I don't recall accusing any other women of having one? On the other hand... Advocate (obvious narcissist) is a man. Eggnog7 is a man, he has something along the same lines as you. That Godelian dude was a pure psychopath, also a man. Immanuel Can seems likely to have a personality disorder but I wouldn't know which, he's not a lady.

You're just trying to get into some conflict because you need it, what with your cluster B personality disorder. Consider this attempt rejected. Nice try though.

[accelafine]

Oh look at the 'kind' wokie, the one who is always accusing others of having 'personality disorders' (but only if they are women of course)

Who are these other women I have accused of personality disorders? You obviously have one, it's all consuming. But I don't recall accusing any other women of having one? On the other hand... Advocate (obvious narcissist) is a man. Eggnog7 is a man, he has something along the same lines as you. That Godelian dude was a pure psychopath, also a man. Immanuel Can seems likely to have a personality disorder but I wouldn't know which, he's not a lady.

You're just trying to get into some conflict because you need it, what with your cluster B personality disorder. Consider this attempt rejected. Nice try though.

You're a selective **** and you know it. And I've never seen you get personal with any of those. When your special buddy Sculptor was around you spent most of your time crawling up his arse and he would habitually tell people to kill themselves just for disagreeing with him. Completely batshit insane and sociopathic. I notice you haven't included any fellow wokies in your (very small) list.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sorry, I just don't feel like engaging with your issues today.

[peacegirl]

And all you have done is wring your weak little hands.

If I understand something, I can put it into other words, because that's sort of how it works to understand things. If you can only repeat the original text, you are missing something yourself. You bring nothing to the table, you present no additional context, you don't help anyone to make whatever leap of understanding they are missing. You are a passenger.

You're completely off the mark. I do understand things. I even added some examples of my own.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it refers to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to show how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

Utterly trivial, not even making an attempt at the real issue. You say this stuff is misunderstood by apparently everyone except yourself in the world?

To you it’s trivial but it really isn’t because I would not be able to give examples if I didn’t understand the book, which I’m being accused of. This whole thread is going down the drain.

Make a useful effort to explain it then. Something isn't getting through apparently, and you should be able to do more about that. Instead you whine that nobody is being nice enough to the material.

I never used those words.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness or strength is different.

All you do is whine about not being understood, but given the opportunity to put work into it, you cry about how unfair that is to you. You are not "incredibly strong", but it is not surprising to see you award yourself that medal.

I really don't get the resentment. I came to share something important, which you all won't allow yourselves to read. It's really sad.

I just think you are a pathetic whiny nobody. You say you want to share something important, and that it is made up these amazing insights, supported by perfect argument. Expand meaningfully on it then. If you understand it, find ways to express it other than pasting the same text again. Explain the argument more clearly, separate the premises from conclusions so that people can make clear links where apparently we aren't getting it at present.

I tried. You already shot me down by saying that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is repetitive and useless. How can I continue?

Or, do the exact same failing shit every day until you die, always complaining because everyone else in the world is letting you down. But don't forget to congratulate yourself for being so strong while you do that.

If there really is some perfect gold in all this Lessans nonsense, it is a terrible shame that the person carrying the torch has to be somebody with as little mojo as yourself.

I don’t have any mojo?

[Age]

But it is great. You just don't know it because you are suspicious and won't let your guard down.

Once more you have allowed your assumptions, and then beliefs, to lead you completely and astray, here.

Do you know why you keep doing 'this'?

If no, then maybe working out why might help you, here.

I want people to read the book and understand it, not give it a cursory overview.

So, why not present 'the book', here, or somewhere else, for free?

Or, why not just express some of 'the ideas', here, from your own perspective and/or in your own words, and then just have and open and honest, peaceful, discussion about 'it' or 'them'?

Do you not appear to be aware that you wanting 'us' to understand what may well be flawed, itself, is 'an issue' of 'yours' that you will be much better by getting a 'handle on', for lack of better wording for now.

you want people to read 'the book', and 'understand it', is what is wanted by 'all people' who have a particular belief, and who have a 'biased view and perspective' of things.

Now, obviously you are going to have a 'biased view and perspective' of things, here, for, at least, two very clear and obvious reasons.

The sales are secondary. Why would I reduce the price to 99 cents?

Because you, still, want to make 99 cents off of each book. Or, as someone else has already pointed out, relatively you still want to make 'a buck' from each sale.

Which, in and of itself, is bad enough even if you wrote 'the book', but considering you did not, then you are wanting to 'make money' off of someone else's work. Which some would consider far, far worse.

They are my compilation.

To me it is absolutely Wrong and absurd that any one wants to 'make money' off of and from just 'the sharing' of thoughts, anyway, let alone 'another person' wanting to 'make money' from 'compiling' 'the work' of another. Next you will get "artificial intelligence' to do 'the compiling' and you will want to 'make money' because you 'listed' 'the book' on a philosophy forum, of all places.

I am carrying the ball in the hope that this knowledge won't be lost to future generations, especially if I can't get it brought to light in my lifetime.

LOL but only on the 'proviso' that people pay 'you money', first.

Seriously, I thought "flashdangerpants" might have been over exaggerating about 'you', when I first saw its writings, here, and about 'the way' you were wanting to sell, here, but "flashdangerpants" appear to be 'spot on'.

Imagine being that greedy and selfish, and blind and stupid, that you actually believed that some so-called 'new knowledge' will benefit future generations, and claim that you did not want 'it' to be lost to future generations, but then, purposely, without 'this knowledge' from future generations unless people hand over 'money', to you.

As it is sometimes called some one would be 'rolling in their grave' at the moment, knowing what you are actually doing, and withholding, here.

Can you, really, still not yet 'see' what you are doing, here?

From what I have gathered and ascertained from "flashdangerpants" you have been on 'this mission', from your own "father's" own work, to 'sell' the very book that your "father" worked on, supposedly for the benefit and betterment of future humanity.

Because although whatever we choose is the right answer, it doesn't explain a deeper truth and that is that we can only move in one direction.

Until you prove 'this' to be irrefutably True, then 'it' will remain your opinion, view, and/or belief, only.

Now, if 'this' has been irrefutably True, in 'some book', then present the sound and valid argument, for all of 'us' to 'look at' and 'see', here.

And, of course, if and when you do present a 'sound and valid argument', here, in a philosophy forum, then, by definition, there will not be any one who could refute it.

Could things be any more simpler and easier, here?

This is very important when you understand the reason our choice, in the direction of greater satisfaction, could not be the choice to hurt others with a first blow.

'This' is all completely unnecessary layers of confusion.

I understand the incredulity since there are people who are mentally ill and it's hard to believe that they will turn into angels when all blame is removed.

Why do you want 'blame', itself, removed?

Who is going to accept and take responsibility for the Wrong being done, in 'the world'?

Are adults going to keep 'trying to' pass 'responsibility' onto children?

Besides you adult human beings who else is, actually, 'responsible' for 'the way' 'the world' is in NOW?

Now, if you adult human beings are not to be 'blamed' for 'the mess' that 'the world' is in 'now', when this is being written, then why would any one even want to begin to change?

But, according to you and/or your "father's" 'theory' no one can even choose to change, anyway, right?

you adult human beings do not just 'turn into angels' because you are not be 'blamed' for the obvious Wrong that you, for the very simple fact that there is no reason at all to change.

There may be "mad dogs" who will have to remain incarcerated or taken off the streets, but this will be done with compassion. Moreover, as a new generation is born, these mental illness will be virtually nonexistent due to these amazing changes.

If you go ahead and explain how and why you will, begin to, 'amazingly change', "yourself", then just maybe more people will listen to you.

So, what will make you 'begin' to 'amazingly change', 'now', while 'I' am not 'blaming' 'you' for absolutely any of the very, very many Wrong things that 'you' do, in Life?

Also, and by the way only when you know how and why you are continually doing Wrong, and not changing for the better, 'now', then you will uncover, and discover, the 'actual knowledge', which will actually stop and prevent the up and coming future generations of children to do Wrong when they have become adult human beings.

But, you think you already know better, right?

If yes, then you will not want to listen to any of 'this (new/er/ish) knowledge', (which is all completely free as well), correct?

So, why expect others to want to listen to 'some knowledge', which only after you are 'given money', then you will share and reveal?

It's very easy to shut down because it's hard to even imagine a world where peace prevails.

Look and listen so-called "peacegirl", your completely False and Wrong assumptions and beliefs, like this one, here, is letting you down absolutely and completely.

'The world' where peace prevails is not just very, very easy and simple to imagine, but H.O.W. it actually comes about and exists forever is already known and well understood.

Could you have allowed your own made up opinion and assumption, here, to jump to a conclusion, which then are now just believing is absolutely?

Which then would obviously effect 'the way' you then 'look at' and 'see' things, further?

If I assumed anything, please let me know where and I'll apologize if I was wrong,

1. you assumed that "flashdangerpants" is a number of 'things', which 'it' very clearly could not be.

2. you assumed that it is hard to imagine a world where peace prevails.

3. you assumed that particular mental illness will be virtually nonexistent due to these amazing changes.

And, this was just in the last three quotes of yours, here.

So, one assumption in each of those last quotes of yours. I did not look any further back in this thread.

but what I am bringing to the table is not an opinion piece;

So, you believe and claim, and, again, assume.

And, if you are not just assuming that what you are bringing, here, is not an 'opinion piece', then provide the irrefutable prove and facts, which prove that 'each piece' is not just 'an opinion' but is an 'irrefutable Fact'.

Now, if you actually 'did this', instead of just 'compiling' what has already been presented, and obviously is not working, then 'your assumption' that 'it' is not just an 'opinion piece' would already be a 'proved Fact'.

it is an invariable law of our nature and when it is applied on a global basis, amazing things will happen.

1. What you have written and said so far did not align with your human beings 'nature'.

2. Saying, 'amazing things will happen', is not really 'saying much', at all.

Sorry Age, this is too much to unpack. Make it simpler by asking a few questions at a time, not a book, or it won't work.
[/quote]

Once more, if you would like me to respond to you, then learn how to quote properly, and Correctly.

However, if you would prefer that 'I' do not respond to 'you', then just keep doing what you are, here.

I am not fixing up your misquoting this time.

[Age]

Sorry Age, this is too much to unpack. Make it simpler by asking a few questions at a time, not a book, or it won't work.

Using 'the excuse', here, that there is 'too much to unpack' is a sure sign that you do not yet have a 'handle on things', as some would say.

And, claiming to make 'it' simpler by 'writing less', at a time, and not 'a book', or 'it' will not work, when it is you who is trying to 'sell' 'a book', which you will not even provide snippets of in your 'own words' just goes to show how hypocritical and unaware you really have been and are, here.

[Age]

Yeah I told P girl years ago that nothing new is here and that this 'discovery' was made by deterninists hundreds of years ago. Not saying her old man isn't right, only that this is not original stuff.

She seems to be trying to argue point for point with age now. I think perhaps she's found her level.

Well, since you are, still, 'trying to' 'argue' with it, does that imply that you are both on the same level'?

If no, then what is the actual difference, here, "flashdangerpants"?

Are you under some sort of 'belief' that 'you' are just 'superior' or on 'another level to others, here?

[FlashDangerpants]

You're completely off the mark. I do understand things. I even added some examples of my own.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it refers to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to show how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

Utterly trivial, not even making an attempt at the real issue. You say this stuff is misunderstood by apparently everyone except yourself in the world?

To you it’s trivial but it really isn’t because I would not be able to give examples if I didn’t understand the book, which I’m being accused of. This whole thread is going down the drain.

You say that nobody understands the argument. Arguments can be explained from other perspectives, in other terms, if you understand them and they are any good and you have even a modicum of ability. One of those three things is missing at your end. Fix that, don't ix it, not my problem.

Make a useful effort to explain it then. Something isn't getting through apparently, and you should be able to do more about that. Instead you whine that nobody is being nice enough to the material.

I never used those words.

So? It's an accurate description of your situation.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness or strength is different.

All you do is whine about not being understood, but given the opportunity to put work into it, you cry about how unfair that is to you. You are not "incredibly strong", but it is not surprising to see you award yourself that medal.

I really don't get the resentment. I came to share something important, which you all won't allow yourselves to read. It's really sad.

I just think you are a pathetic whiny nobody. You say you want to share something important, and that it is made up these amazing insights, supported by perfect argument. Expand meaningfully on it then. If you understand it, find ways to express it other than pasting the same text again. Explain the argument more clearly, separate the premises from conclusions so that people can make clear links where apparently we aren't getting it at present.

I tried. You already shot me down by saying that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is repetitive and useless. How can I continue?

Well take the argument you think I am not understanding and put it another way so that I can understand, or at least so that somebody else reading the post could see it. Put the argument into your own words. Do something. Take action. Be useful. Amount to something.

Or, do the exact same failing shit every day until you die, always complaining because everyone else in the world is letting you down. But don't forget to congratulate yourself for being so strong while you do that.

If there really is some perfect gold in all this Lessans nonsense, it is a terrible shame that the person carrying the torch has to be somebody with as little mojo as yourself.

I don’t have any mojo?

Your plan for how to get out of your rut is to keep plodding along in your rut. You are a rut dweller madam. That is your natural talent, practically a super power.

[Age]

Don't speak for other people. If you think it's 3rd rate shit, then why are you here? You can leave; the door is open.

If you weren't speaing for other people when you wrote "All I can think of as to why this reaction is so negative is because people have been disappointed so many times that they don't want to be suckers, so they try to get you before you get them" then I wasn't when I wrote "You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it." in response. The alternative is that we both spoke for other people.

Please try to be less of a hypocrite.

I have not spoken for other people.

True, you 'have not'. However, just as True is that you have 'tried to' speak for others, exactly like "flashdangerpants" has.

So, if you really wanted to you could be less of a "hypocrite".

They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

What can be seen, here, was a very common occurrence among the adult population, in the days when this is being written, and that is, 'they' would commonly say things like, 'people do this or that', without being clear about 'how many people' do this or that.

And, in case it was not yet noticed I wrote 'they', in the very way that I did for a very specific reason.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows. I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct. This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery.

Has any one actually 'believed' that 'this' is not a 'true' discovery? Or, have they 'believed' that 'this' is not a 'new' discovery?

There is a huge difference, here. And, like all of the other subtle differences that get missed and/or misunderstood along 'the way', here, this is not helping the confusion and conflicts, here.

See, of course what your "father" 'discovered' was a 'true' discovery for "him", and, just as obvious is that 'that discovery' could have even been a 'new' discovery, for "him" as well. But, what you appear to keep missing, here, is that 'that' was not a 'new' discovery in the sense that your "father" was the very first human being to have so-called 'discovered' that there is only 'determinism' and/or no 'free will'.

It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

you could actually say that you will provide the so-called 'second discovery' for free, and then just do it. Are you absolutely sure that 'this' would not make a 'bit of difference', here?

[peacegirl]

Utterly trivial, not even making an attempt at the real issue. You say this stuff is misunderstood by apparently everyone except yourself in the world?

To you it’s trivial but it really isn’t because I would not be able to give examples if I didn’t understand the book, which I’m being accused of. This whole thread is going down the drain.

You say that nobody understands the argument. Arguments can be explained from other perspectives, in other terms, if you understand them and they are any good and you have even a modicum of ability. One of those three things is missing at your end. Fix that, don't ix it, not my problem.

If you are a philosopher, don't you first read the required book before people start discussing it? I am at a big disadvantage because you think I should be able to explain it easily. It is not easy. You reject his claim that we have no free will because, according to you, it's a moot point since whatever we choose is in that direction based on our motivations. To you, it's just a tautology. How am I supposed to go forward. You pretended you were reading what I painstakingly posted for your benefit. You were humoring me, is all.

Make a useful effort to explain it then. Something isn't getting through apparently, and you should be able to do more about that. Instead you whine that nobody is being nice enough to the material.

I never used those words.

So? It's an accurate description of your situation.

No it isn't. I never whined like that, so stop it.

I really don't get the resentment. I came to share something important, which you all won't allow yourselves to read. It's really sad.

I just think you are a pathetic whiny nobody. You say you want to share something important, and that it is made up these amazing insights, supported by perfect argument. Expand meaningfully on it then. If you understand it, find ways to express it other than pasting the same text again. Explain the argument more clearly, separate the premises from conclusions so that people can make clear links where apparently we aren't getting it at present.

I tried. You already shot me down by saying that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is repetitive and useless. How can I continue?

Well take the argument you think I am not understanding and put it another way so that I can understand, or at least so that somebody else reading the post could see it. Put the argument into your own words. Do something. Take action. Be useful. Amount to something.

I already did. I can't explain it any better than the text itself. It will not do it justice. You will not accept this excerpt. You will say it's a tautology and that will end the conversation before it begins.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

Or, do the exact same failing shit every day until you die, always complaining because everyone else in the world is letting you down. But don't forget to congratulate yourself for being so strong while you do that.

If there really is some perfect gold in all this Lessans nonsense...

Please don't call this nonsense, okay? Nonsense it is not. I tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate when you make false accusations and belittle such an important work whether you think so or not.

[Age]

I have not spoken for other people. They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

You have no basis for that except animus. There's nothing more untowards in what I actually wrote than in what you did. Please don't bother trying to turn things personal on me, I don't care about you enough to put effort into that.

What are you even on about, here, "flashdangerpants"? you were the one who used the 'nobody' word, which, obviously, leaves 'no body left'. Whereas, "peacegirl" did use the 'people' word, which could also be 'taken as meaning' 'all people', 'all people' was not specified, whereas your, 'no body' specifically means, 'no body'.

Here, 'we' can clearly see the subtleties in people's writings, in the days when this was being written, which 'they' had not yet learned how to recognize 'them'.

The adult population, in the days when this was being written, had not been taught to be 'actually specific' in what they say, and write, nor to only say, and write, only what they actually specifically mean.

'They' were not taught to think about, and then say and express, what they, exactly, meant, so they spoke and wrote 'in ways', from a subconscious perspective that, 'they will know what i actually mean/t'.

As can be very clearly seen above, here, and all throughout this forum, here.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows.

Same applies to trying to use my ego against me. Don't waste your effort, I am not influential and I don't let that worry me very much.

What 'we' can see, here, is another prime example of how the 'ego', with the 'beleif-system', is not open to the actual Truth, and in fact closes "itself" off from any thing other than what it already believes is true. Which is why it took so long for these human beings, back when this was being written, so, so, so long to 'catch up'.

'This one' will never learn and understand, and thus will never grow and mature, while it is not honest and open to see the actual difference between 'the way' it wrote and spoke, from, 'the way' "peaceful" girl wrote, and spoke, here.

I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct.

Well that's just weird. Try having better arguments. Or actually dealing with other people's objections instead of trying to dismiss us all as mean spirited and closed minded oafs.

Do you not dismiss others, "flashdangerpants"?

Or, if you do, is it always completely and utterly 'justified', to you?

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

[peacegirl]

If you weren't speaing for other people when you wrote "All I can think of as to why this reaction is so negative is because people have been disappointed so many times that they don't want to be suckers, so they try to get you before you get them" then I wasn't when I wrote "You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it." in response. The alternative is that we both spoke for other people.

Please try to be less of a hypocrite.

I have not spoken for other people.

True, you 'have not'. However, just as True is that you have 'tried to' speak for others, exactly like "flashdangerpants" has.

So, if you really wanted to you could be less of a "hypocrite".

They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

What can be seen, here, was a very common occurrence among the adult population, in the days when this is being written, and that is, 'they' would commonly say things like, 'people do this or that', without being clear about 'how many people' do this or that.

And, in case it was not yet noticed I wrote 'they', in the very way that I did for a very specific reason.

What the hell are you talking about? This knowledge has no relation to how many people do this or that.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows. I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct. This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery.

Has any one actually 'believed' that 'this' is not a 'true' discovery? Or, have they 'believed' that 'this' is not a 'new' discovery?

Not anyone who has read the book, which are very few. But I have people reviewing it as we speak. Only people here have said it's not a new discovery, yet they don't even know what the discovery is, so how can they tell me it's not new?

There is a huge difference, here. And, like all of the other subtle differences that get missed and/or misunderstood along 'the way', here, this is not helping the confusion and conflicts, here.

See, of course what your "father" 'discovered' was a 'true' discovery for "him", and, just as obvious is that 'that discovery' could have even been a 'new' discovery, for "him" as well. But, what you appear to keep missing, here, is that 'that' was not a 'new' discovery in the sense that your "father" was the very first human being to have so-called 'discovered' that there is only 'determinism' and/or no 'free will'.

His claim that we don't have free will is not the discovery. It is the gateway in so people can see how we can overcome the impasse that has kept this debate from making any progress due to the inability up until now to demonstrate how determinism can help our world immensely.

It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

you could actually say that you will provide the so-called 'second discovery' for free, and then just do it. Are you absolutely sure that 'this' would not make a 'bit of difference', here?

This is not my first rodeo. It would ruin the conversation of the most important of his three discoveries.

[Age]

I have not spoken for other people. They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

You have no basis for that except animus. There's nothing more untowards in what I actually wrote than in what you did. Please don't bother trying to turn things personal on me, I don't care about you enough to put effort into that.

If I did the same thing as you, sorry. This is so off track that it is simply a distraction.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows.

Same applies to trying to use my ego against me. Don't waste your effort, I am not influential and I don't let that worry me very much.

Fair enough.

I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct.

Well that's just weird. Try having better arguments. Or actually dealing with other people's objections instead of trying to dismiss us all as mean spirited and closed minded oafs.

It's not that. It's that I cannot explain this work in my own words without leaving gaps.

If you can not yet explain some thing, then you do not yet understand it well enough.

Also, if one withholds 'works', then it is them who is, literally, 'leaving gaps'. Which, to another, will then wonder why?

I have tried it even in here and I only get boos. You really need to carefully read the first three chapters, which you haven't done. You would have questions if you had.

What?

Even when you have been asked some questions in relation to the first three chapters, you have not answered them.

And, what even is the use in asking you questions when by your own admission you can not even explain things without leaving gaps'?

If you do not even understand your "fathers" writings, then there must be flaws or faults within them. Although you believe, absolutely, that 'this' is not true.

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference. :

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

Look "peacegirl", it is 'you' who is 'the one' who will not give your "father's" writing 'a chance'.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand.

But you are 'the one' who even admitted that your understanding leaves gaps.

It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that.

Yet, you will leave out 'half of a book', for your 'self-interest monetary gains', here.

You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

And, you can also lead a horse to water, while leaving the tank only 'half full', or while holding the reins so the horse can not drink all of 'the water'.