Time travel, you could back to when you first tried to make excuses why you wouldn't discuss the second discovery with anyone except paying customers and go the other way.
That isn't why I didn't want to discuss the second discovery or the third. Again, you are coming to a false conclusion.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 5:44 pmTime travel, you could back to when you first tried to make excuses why you wouldn't discuss the second discovery with anyone except paying customers and go the other way.
This thread is already dead. Screw the pooch? What huge mistake have I made that would compel you to turn away from giving this author a chance? What is the worst that could happen? You would point out where you believe he's wrong (not just stating it's a tautology or his wording is not to your liking) and then you would have something to sink your teeth into. But this can only be fair if you take the time to read the book in its entirety. People snub their noses as if what this author discovered makes not one bit of difference, or they are so skeptical that they don't want to go any further because it sounds too good to be true. I'm out of ideas. Can you at least empathize with how frustrating this is for me?FlashDangerpants wrote:You already screwed the pooch though, so your way forward is to just give up on this deceased thread you keep trying to necromance.
Thank you promethean75 for recognizing that there is a problem with the direction this thread is going. I certainly am not a slick car salesman. If anyone wanted to understand the excerpts I posted, they would have realized very quickly that there may be something to this after all. But unfortunately when someone makes up their mind in advance that this is fraudulent, they will dismiss out of hand anything that goes against their worldview.promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:28 pm We're at an impasse then. Without knowing if PG is an impassioned overzealous believer in a version of determinism that she thinks is revolutionary, original, and not yet thought of or if she is just an intellectual version of a car salesman trying to sell a model advertised as new but which has had the odometer rolled back, we cannot reach a verdict regarding the charges brought against her by one FDP.
I don't pity myself. I pity the fact that this book is not being studied in a way that will do it justice. All you do is attack me, as if I'm guilty of something. Why don't you take the plunge and actually read, not skim, the link I gave, for starters? You may have read some of it, but not all, because you would have had relevant questions other than telling me he was wrong due to a tautology. You may actually have become interested (believe it or not) because it is an interesting book. Your disagreement does not discredit the author's astute observations in the least.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 6:11 pmNobody ever said you were slick. One way to tell is that slick salesmen actually sell stuff and you do not. The only conspicuous talent you display is for self-pity.
So now you're doing me a favor? I am not sure why you're here if you are so positive he couldn't be right. I'm not telling you that you can't refute him, but you have to know what he demonstrated. Is that asking too much? For example, he says that the past doesn't exist except in our memory; therefore, the past does not cause us to do what we do in the present. We use what we remember from what just happened a second ago or long ago (depending on what we are pulling from our memories) to help us decide which choice is the most preferable at any given moment. I think you agree with that, even though you don't think it's any big deal. The only point he was making was that A (any antecedent event) cannot cause B if A is no longer here. This leads to a more accurate definition of determinism that is a true reflection of reality. I don't know if you're interested in this, or if you're just here to mock me.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 7:24 pm I've helped you keep your pitiful thread above some other spam. That's your lot.
Don't take it personally. He just hates women.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 9:44 pmSo now you're doing me a favor? I am not sure why you're here if you are so positive he couldn't be right. I'm not telling you that you can't refute him, but you have to know what he demonstrated. Is that asking too much? For example, he says that the past doesn't exist except in our memory; therefore, the past does not cause us to do what we do in the present. We use what we remember from what just happened a second ago or long ago (depending on what we are pulling from our memories) to help us decide which choice is the most preferable at any given moment. I think you agree with that, even though you don't think it's any big deal. The only point he was making was that A (any antecedent event) cannot cause B if A is no longer here. This leads to a more accurate definition of determinism that is a true reflection of reality. I don't know if you're interested in this, or if you're just here to mock me.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 7:24 pm I've helped you keep your pitiful thread above some other spam. That's your lot.
You had plenty of opportunity to explore the details of the argument you claim to present. You refused to elaborate on anything at all at the time though; claiming the words in the book were too perfect, that you couldn't do them justice, and thus you could only cut and paste from that book over and over again. I wasted page after page trying to get you to put some meat on those bones and you were not up to it. Atla too.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 1:53 amYou had plenty of opportunity to explore the details of the argument you claim to present.
PEACEGIRL: I asked people to read what he wrote that would have avoided all this naysaying., You didn't read it fully. You cherry-picked.
FLASHDANGERPANTS: You refused to elaborate on anything at all at the time though; claiming the words in the book were too perfect, that you couldn't do them justice, and thus you could only cut and paste from that book over and over again.
PEACEGIRL: i never once said the words were too perfect, but the words do speak for themselves and are clear in expression. They make sense if you care to read them. You're looking for flaws that are not there.
FLASHDANGERPANTS: I wasted page after page trying to get you to put some meat on those bones and you were not up to it. Atla too.
PEACEGIRL: Meat on some bones? It's full of meat. You never had a question. You never seemed interested. You were only ready to criticize his writing ability. You are poo pooing his entire work based on a judgment, not on his actual observations and reasoning. That is why in my last post I wanted to see if you accept his premise that the past does not cause the present because we only have the present. You never even responded. Maybe you did this because he didn't write in academic prose. Think of it as a story then, maybe that would help. I urge you to start over and not jump to conclusions. Give him the benefit of the doubt, please. I know you have the capacity to grasp these concepts, and you may actually find them compelling.
FLASHDANGERPANTS: So the opportunity to rise to debate was available to you in the summer, but you were too weak to seize it. Now that season has passed and you are just clutching at straws. You should learn from this failure and be prepared to contribute words of your own the next time you dig this turd up for resale, wherever that might be.
PEACEGIRL: There you go again with your expletives. Why FlashDangerpants? The season has not passed, and I hope you reconsider. You all seem to be fixated on money. This is not what it's about, and I won't let you twist the motive to satisfy your false suspicions if I have anything to do with it.
FLASHDANGERPANTS: Unless perhaps accelafine wants to read your book and give you constructive feedback.
PEACEGIRL: He was the first to jump down my throat when I got here. I don't want the same old same old again with someone who has already made up his mind that these claims have to be false. Looks can be deceiving.
Then why are you here? Obviously, nothing I say matters to you. It's like anything I say falls on deaf ears.