New discovery

[peacegirl]

Just a suggestion PG: now that you got our interest, you could attach a file with the first three chapters you copied and pasted and then we read it and will understand better your reasoninig (send it to me by e-mail if you don't know how to attach it and I'll attach it for you)

 

Thank you so much. That is such a good idea. I am waiting for my formatter to send it to me. As soon as she does, I will forward it to you. Thanks again for your interest in this book!

[peacegirl]

Just an aside, but it reminded me about serial killers. In doing research I have found that they really are not that modern of a phenomenon. Just the modern record keeping and foresics have allowed us to identify these killers a bit easier today.

 

We have never lived in a world without judgment and blame, so it doesn't surprise me that there were serial killers way back in ancient times, but history does not predict the future in this case because everything changes once this principle is put into effect and the transition to the new world is complete.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Interesting, Inf. I am frankly not even to the point yet of acceptance/rejection. I am just trying to figure out what PG is saying. Some of this stuff is so inarticulate, that it looks like Hare Krishna chants. I went back through some of the posts, and I found (quickly) a couple of dozen sentences, that are impossible to interpret in normal English. It is the appearance-of-complexity through convoluted style that irritates me. I thik that easily half of the posts could be completely deleted and it would ADD clarity.

 

It reminds me of editing documents that were written by young staff guys at one of my previous consulting firms. They would come in with a three page document, and I would edit it down to six sentences. I would ask them to iidentify anything missing in my six sentences. They (of course) couldn't.

 

Those kids were trainable. The evidence suggests that PG is not.

 

You may be right Bio. but I'm willing to give her some more time to sort things out. I like you find her posts very incoherent at best, but I think she has a good heart.

 

Infamous, I took out the word 'relevant' also. That was not what I meant to say. What I said to you was meant to be complimentary, but it didn't sound that way. But why do you say things about me that sound demeaning such as 'The evidence suggests that PG is not.' That sounds like a put down to me. Sorry.

 

I purposely was repetitive because sometimes people don't get it the first or second time. It was not meant to be convoluted. I am talking to a group of people who might have an easier time than someone that has never thought about this issue at all. But I have to admit, I am kind of psychologically programmed by high school and college, to believe that a longer book is a better book.

 

Writing this book took me back to the days when the requirement was a certain amount of pages. I didn't realize that I still held that within my psyche, and had to consciously streamlilne certain passages. But that was not why I repeated myself in the first two chapters. In fact, I have tried to make this book readable for the average person. I tried to avoid big words and to break it down in small parts so that people would not get confused. I did have a hard time combining the 6 books because I did not want to leave anything out. Sometimes I had to combine two sentences that were similar which was difficult to do. I had to constantly make sure I did not change the concept in any way and to pull out of each book what I felt was most important.

[Biochemist]

...I am kind of psychologically programmed by high school and college, to believe that a longer book is a better book....In fact, I have tried to make this book readable for the average person. I tried to avoid big words and I made effort to make it flow so that people would not get confused.

That quote above was from me, PG. I apologize for picking on you.

 

I do think you have a convoluted style. Is it not the size of the words, it is the number of serial dependent clauses in sentences.

 

For example:

 

I reallly think it would be a lot better if you could select out a key idea and then simply articulate it in one sentence without modifying the same idea in the same sentence to clarify because the reader has to hold too many thoughts in their mind at once instead of processing a single thought, and that is much more difficult.

 

Versus:

 

It is best to put a single idea in a sentence. Add another sentence if you need to modify the idea. Long sentences confuse the reader. It is difficult for the reader to store all of the contexts in a long thought.

[peacegirl]

That quote above was from me, PG. I apologize for picking on you.

 

I do think you have a convoluted style. Is it not the size of the words, it is the number of serial dependent clauses in sentences.

 

For example:

 

I reallly think it would be a lot better if you could select out a key idea and then simply articulate it in one sentence without modifying the same idea in the same sentence to clarify because the reader has to hold too many thoughts in their mind at once instead of processing a single thought, and that is much more difficult.

 

Versus:

 

It is best to put a single idea in a sentence. Add another sentence if you need to modify the idea. Long sentences confuse the reader. It is difficult for the reader to store all of the contexts in a long thought.

 

I am glad you let me know that it wasn't Infamous. Sorry Infamous! I hope you don't dislike me now. I was very careful not to have run on sentences Bio. The author got a lot of slack from his style of writing and I tried to condense some of his sentences to make them as clear as possible without changing the concept. I am not sure which sentence in the first and second chapter you are referring to. I couldn't afford an editor so I did the best I could. I hope that won't stop you from reading the book one day.

[Biochemist]

....I am not sure which sentence in the first and second chapter you are referring to. I couldn't afford an editor so I did the best I could. ...

PG- I ws not referring to any particular sentence. I was referring to all of them. If you would like, pick any of your several hundred posts and I will rewrite one for you, assuming I can figure it out. Many of them I could not.

 

I suspect many other readers here had similarr experiences with the writing style.

[BEAKER]

I suspect many other readers here had similarr experiences with the writing style.

I really don't mean to be insulting; I haven't read it all...it seems to be sincere, heartfelt, intense, intentional rambleing.

[peacegirl]

PG- I ws not referring to any particular sentence. I was referring to all of them. If you would like, pick any of your several hundred posts and I will rewrite one for you, assuming I can figure it out. Many of them I could not.

 

I suspect many other readers here had similarr experiences with the writing style.

 

I really appreciate that Bio, but I am finished the writing of this book. It has been three years, 13 proofs, and I am exhausted. As time goes if I see there is a real problem and the sentence structure is causing people to misunderstand what is being said, I will let you be my editor. Deal? There is no easy way to explain this knowledge, but I am not saying that there is no one that could do a better job than me. Maybe there is and I would welcome the input. :shrug:

[peacegirl]

I really don't mean to be insulting; I haven't read it all...it seems to be sincere, heartfelt, intense, intentional rambleing.

 

You say you don't want to be insulting but then you call it rambling after all the nice adjectives that came before it. If rambling isn't insulting, then what is it? And you just said you haven't read it all. It's amazing how many people say things before they read it. After you read it, I will love to talk to you further, but not until.

[bumab]

As time goes if I see there is a real problem and the sentence structure is causing people to misunderstand what is being said...

 

It certainly is with me.

[peacegirl]

It certainly is with me.

 

I stated in the foreword and introduction that there is no easy way to explain this knowledge. I am doing the best I can and I do believe it is explainable and it can be understood by people who take the time to read what is written, not skim and make premature judgments before they know what they have read. I am not saying that's you bio.

[peacegirl]

I think I can assert with pretty high authority that explaining chapter three will not help at all.Hmmm. You mentioned above that mental illness was going to go away. A sigificant fraction of mental illness is organic, and not caused by medication of any sort.

 

It sounds like you think most medications cause damage, versus treat disease. That is an odd point of view.

 

Could you tell me:

 

1) How old are you, and

2) If you have a degree, what is it?

 

Bio, I am following the reasoning in this book and if you understand how the entire psychological process changes once we know that man is not to blame, then it is easy to conclude that mental illness, which is a reaction to the judgment in this world, will die a quiet death. I am not saying that mental illness is caused by medication, but I am saying that medication can cause side effects that none of us understand because the results are not in yet. When this law becomes a condition of the environment, the doctor will have to decide whether he thinks it is worth the risk to put people in jeapordy using these medications because no one will blame him if it is proven later on that the medicines not only didn't help the condition, but made it 10 times worse.

[peacegirl]

I just received the first three chapters on PDF. I am not sure how to send it or to whom. Should I just email: [email protected]? Please let me know so people can read at their leisure and I won't be taking up so much space with my posts.

[Queso]

please send a copy to [email protected] i am very interested in reading them.

[bumab]

...if you understand how the entire psychological process changes once we know that man is not to blame, then it is easy to conclude that mental illness, which is a reaction to the judgment in this world, will die a quiet death.

 

Many mental illness sufferers would disagree it's a reaction to the world's judgement. What about the observable differences in brain function and structure, present from birth?

[peacegirl]

Many mental illness sufferers would disagree it's a reaction to the world's judgement. What about the observable differences in brain function and structure, present from birth?

 

Bumab, we won't know the degree to which mental illness is affected by the free will environment until we are living in the New World. Only then will be able to determine how much is due to brain function and how much is due to environmental causes.

[bumab]

But isn't the absence of mental illness something that is required for the new world to exist? No doubt mental patients do things that are unprovoked, isn't that enough to stop the new world from coming?