No he wasn't, now you're just making stuff up. If he were I'd have been able to find references to him in that context. I did find an obituary for him though. Maryland state billiards champion for a while, and a salesman of construction and home renovation products. And if you're really just a friend of his and not his daughter, it seems very odd that you'd use the same user name she did on message boards going back to at least 2005, and write exactly the same way she does. I've seen three people on different message boards prove Lessans' claims are false, and your response is always the same. You deny it and tell them they don't understand, when they plainly do. Your credibility is now down to zero and the crank-o-meter is up to 10.
Dexter, I am not making this up. He was an incredible mathematician. His job was sales, but he was a math expert. He was a chess expert and a champion pool player. During his free time he did a tremendous amount of reading in philosophy and literature. In fact, he would read voraciously up to 8 hours a day. You say people have proved Lessans wrong. Where? Tell me, how did you determine that these people proved anything other than giving their opinion, just like you are doing. I think anybody that disagrees with Lessans is your way of justifying your disapproval of his work.
Well, I guess if you had a good reason for bald face lying.
But, I guess the fact that you did that is my fault, right, because I'll blame you for telling a lie. If I'd just learn to let your behaviour slide off my back, you might stop lying, no matter what justifications you had.
Nah... that just doesn't fly.
I lied because I wanted this book to have a chance, and if I gave my identity people would laugh and say "No wonder she believes in this book; it's her fathers'. Isn't that exactly what you are doing? I moved in the direction of greater satisfaction to lie rather than deal with people calling me 'loyal' or 'faithful', as if that's all it is. I did this as the lesser of two evils, and if you want to blame me, go ahead, but I believe you would have done the same thing if you had been in my shoes.
Of course she had a good reason... It gave her more satisfaction.
That's true s_lone. At least you are getting something from this thread.
I don't, but K. Greene apparently did..
The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.
Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.
However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.
His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.
His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.
The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.
The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.
This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.
The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.
These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.
Maybe I answered to this one review in another forum, but this guy had a vendetta against me because he hated that my father said the eyes are not a sense organ. He went behind my back, because he was supposed to be helping me, and he went to Amazon and gave this faulty review. I don't know how he was able to do this because the book was not even being sold at that time, and Amazon only allows reviews when people purchase the book. Whatever!! Do you actually believe this guy who never read the book over me? I mean, come on. He writes,
His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.
Compliance? That sounds like there is force involved, and there isn't any. He says a period of military action would be necessary where dissenters are taken care of? This is absolutely misrepresenting the book in the most vicious way because it will turn people off. There is no military anything, no force, no punishment, no being taken care of if there are dissenters. I can't wait for the book to be published so there will be more accurate reviews.
When transition 'is' complete, and there are still those who will not conform, what will happen to them?
Nothing talloola, I told you that already. This knowledge is gentle; it is about no punishment and no blame, so how can there be consequences for those who don't conform? It doesn't even make sense if you read even a little bit of this book. It's the opposite of what Kevin Green said.
