 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The reason why I keep asking the forum character assassin to state his purpose is to get a confession. Absent the confession all that exists is the evidence that leads to the two best possible explanations of the true purpose, and then by way of competition, the most likely purpose of those last two best possible explanations - absent a confession - wins the competition, until a more competitive explanation moves into view.
Example:
Ah, so you think that the only criminals in the world are supported by the government.
What is the purpose, according to the author of that sentence, behind the authorship, and then the publication, on a public forum, where that sentence targets another forum member, what is the point, what is the purpose, of that sentence, or what does the person targeted me, wish to accomplish with that sentence?
Absent the confession, what are the possible intentions behind publishing that sentence?
How can anyone know, without a confession, and then without a confession, how can anyone know if the sentence is not read, and then understood, based upon the contents of the sentence?
The person authoring, and then publishing, the sentence chooses the word "you" followed by the words "think" followed by the word choice "only".
The obvious target is me, since the sentence follows a quote of something I published, and since the author chose the word "you", so the word choice "think" is then obviously intending to attach me, his target, to what I think, and here is where the true purpose of the message can be challenged for accuracy.
Is the forum character assassin asking a fellow forum member what the fellow forum member thinks, seeking a confession, or is the forum character assassin publishing lies about what the assassins target thinks, and who knows what anyone else thinks without some measure of evidence, in the absence of a confession?
I can easily confess exactly what i think, since I have no cause to lie about what I think, so anyone asking me what I think, will be someone who is given an answer as to what I think.
The quote above the lie, that the character assassin places in place of what I think, is this:
As far as I know the people running the monopoly government, U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), hire fellow criminals to pose as agent provocateurs, which isn't a new thing, and they don names that work best at the moment, any name will do, so long as the name works for the moment. Sometimes the name has to be switched or the lie is caught, as, reasonably, you cannot both support an enemy and oppose an enemy at the same time, which would be akin to giving money to someone for protection from them.
An early example of that very thing, as far as I know, involves a group of people who were seeking admission into the Federated Democratic Republic, under The Articles of Confederation, and this fictional legal entity was then known as The State of Franklin. Franklin failed to become a State within the Federated Democratic Republic, under the Articles of Confederation, for reasons explained in the book on that subject, an old book, a rare book, but a book I happened to stumble upon. The point about that book involves a number of sentences in a specific chapter, in the book, that described a practice whereby white people dressed up as murdering native Americans, or Indians, and the result of that charade was examples of tortured piles of dead white settlers on the frontier, or on the boarders between white settlements and native American settlements, whereby the native American settlements were subsequently places whereby tortured and murdered innocent bodies piled up.
That is where I get some of the information I use to think, in places like that old book about The Lost State of Franklin, whereby my thinking is based upon such examples of information, on the subject of people running a monopoly government, such as the State of Franklin, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), where the people running the government are criminals, hiding behind a veil of legitimacy, and they hire people to pose as agent provocateurs, which isn't a new thing, and they don names, like "terrorist" or "savage", and they do what they do best, torture and mass murder, so long as they have a target, and a pay off, and the word, terrorist, or savage, tends to be a word that fits the occasion, and the costume tends to be a costume that fits the occasion, feathers or turbans, whichever fits the occasion, and that is what I think, and that is why I wrote the sentence I wrote, and I published that sentence I wrote, to communicate, to anyone, what I think, on that topic.
This is what I think, again:
As far as I know the people running the monopoly government, U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), hire fellow criminals to pose as agent provocateurs, which isn't a new thing, and they don names that work best at the moment, any name will do, so long as the name works for the moment. Sometimes the name has to be switched or the lie is caught, as, reasonably, you cannot both support an enemy and oppose an enemy at the same time, which would be akin to giving money to someone for protection from them.
Next is the poor attempt by my character assassin to replace what I think, according to me, with what my character assassin prefers to have people think are my thoughts:
Ah, so you think that the only criminals in the world are supported by the government.
According to my character assassin, apparently, I am guilty of thinking stupid things, things that only he knows, things I don't even know, but none-the-less, according to his conviction, I am guilty, and according to his actions, I am summarily punished for the guilt he fabricates upon me, since he publishes his twisted version of my thoughts as if his twisted version is somehow attributable to me, in fact, which is false, and demonstrably false, if only I were presumed innocent before the conviction and before the execution of the sentence.
Why would someone ever dream up such a false thought ever? Who would be so stupid as to think that only criminals in the world are supported by the government? Who on God's Earth would ever be guilty of being that incredibly stupid? Who comes up with such stupid things? I didn't. I didn't write that, I didn't say that, and I don't think that, so who, who is accountable for such ignorance?
My forum assassin, as far as I can tell, desires that stupid thought to be held accountable to me, his target, yet, the paper trail that defines that stupid thought can be traced to the source of that stupid thought, and the trail leads right back to my personal forum assassin.
Honestly I can't even believe you're still posting.
The forum assassin may be used to weaker victims. I don't know. Perhaps I am one of the few people who stand by what they say, so as to offer a true representation of what they think, or perhaps I am unusually careful in the work of defending against misrepresentations published by forum assassins, whereby other potential victims care less if they are targeted by forum assassins with such misrepresentations as those numerous misrepresentations logged onto this paper trail. Perhaps forum assassins have gained ground in their chosen work of censoring information that they prefer to censor?
I can certainly believe that I am still posting because I, unlike my forum assassin, know what I think, and I think that it is important to be accurate, be responsible, and be accountable - setting the record straight, since so many forces are aligned and working to falsify the record.
What one person thinks is important, as likely as not, another person will think the same thing is unimportant.
How does one, anyone, know if another person is a friend or a foe? How does a person know if another person supports liberty, a friend of liberty, or not? I think that is important.
Another person may not think that it is important to be in command of the power that can accurately discriminate the difference between friend and foe.
Unless you can start putting forth some real evidence and employ a debate tactic in which you actually address my points and don't devolve into accusations, proclamations, and insults, I really have no interest in continuing to try and understand your dogmatic position.
Absent a confession, my forum assassin, if I can take him on his word, returned to this thread, after that statement, for those reasons above, the reasons my personal forum assassin published earlier. I don't know, by I think that my forum assassin returned for dubious reasons, such as to add more false representations to his growing pile of misrepresentations targeting me, which is the case, if words mean anything.
If it depends upon what is is, then, what is the point? The point can't be a desire to accurately discriminate between those who are friends and who are foes, if it depends upon what is is, because accurate language is necessary if the goal is to avoid miss-communication. Miss-communication can lead to false conclusions and a friend may the be mistaken for foe, and visa versa.
You purport to be putting forth another option yet offer nothing.
To set the record straight, which is the inevitable distasteful chore, once a forum assassin begins a campaign of character assassination upon his "fellow" forum member, I can repeat the report of how the power struggle works, whereby monopoly power, or no choice, competes with choices, since choices, or competition, over power a monopoly power.
The monopoly power tends to offer no choice as such:
Obey
Other words may be included, to dress up the one choice, such as:
Obey, or else, the order shall not be questioned.
And
Either you are with us, or you are a terrorist.
The deeds of the people supporting a monopoly government are more important than the words published by the supporters of a monopoly government; because the deeds cause harm to innocent people and the deeds thereby uncover the truth, and expose the lies.
There are choices, and among the many choices, perhaps, one choice can the choice by which the intended victims of the monopoly government choose anything else, and thereby avoid victimization.
A. Obey
B. Not A
I can explain how that works from top to bottom.
A one world government supporter will have his, or her, victims thinking, and believing, that the one world government dictates must be obeyed without question. Call that a world nation, or world nationalism, "we are the world", etc., and if that comes to be, the potential victims will have few choices, mars and the moon are too far away, and uninhabitable.
No place to run, no place to hide from blind obedience.
Enter stage left, or right, and there still exists the force of competition, as intended victims can still love their chains, or leave them behind, relatively speaking, since there are many Nation States, and a few examples that are more like a Federated Democratic Republic.
A. Obey
B. Move from a lesser quality monopoly wanna-be, to a higher quality monopoly wanna-be, and move from higher to lower cost, anything but blind obedience found in the lower quality and higher cost monopoly wanna-be location.
Stepping down from the Global monopoly power tip of the pyramid scheme, going down one more level, whereby the lower levels of monopoly power wanna-be legal fictions number more than one, there are sub groups within each lower level monopoly wanna-be legal fictions each of which is unique by some measure of quality over cost or cost divided by benefit, whereby potential victims can choose the higher quality sub division of monopoly wanna-be power structure.
Example:
Level 1 (competition)
World Dictatorship (NWO is one competitor to that throne, but possibly the most dangerous one)
Level 2 (competition)
European Union, China, Russia, Japan, South America, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, etc.
Level 3 (competition)
France, Germany, England, Texas, New York, Brazil, Iran, Sudan, etc.
Level 4 (competition)
San Bernardino (a county in California)
Level 5
Redlands (a city in San Bernardino county)
Level 6 and on, and on, all the way down to the bottom level of that Pyramid scheme, where the individual person may, or may not, add to, or subtract from, the number of choices imaginable, and then those newly invented choices are made real by direct action, such as moving with, or voting with, their feet, whereby one foot may compete with the other to be the first foot to start down that new path.
My forum assassin, when he takes a break from his chosen occupation of misrepresenting me, may get to the point at which he returns to this:
There is no “birther” debate here, it is a debate between those who unquestioningly support the Constitution, and those who seek to subvert it.
Which, absent a confession, appears to be the quintessential end of all competition. There can only be one, nothing else exists.
Like this:
You purport to be putting forth another option yet offer nothing.
What I did point out, and what the monopolist type forum assassin appears to wish into being, are two different things.
1. You offer nothing
2. I reported the facts.
Starkly highlighted against the competitive choice of no choice are many obviously better choices, such as the working Federated Democratic Republic, under The Articles of Confederation, that existed before the legal criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, usurped that competitive government power, and consolidated power into one monopoly power under The Constitution.
A. Monopoly (The Constitution)
B. Competition is not against the law (The Articles of Confederation)
When competition is not against the law, as in The Articles of Confederation, the subjects of one dictatorial monopoly government in one State, can move, or vote with their feet, to a less dictatorial monopoly government, and they did, in one famous case, whereby Daniel Shays, and others went from the legal crime state of Massachusetts, where they lost the fight to rebel, legally, against the criminals running that monopoly government, to Vermont, where they lived happily ever after, more or less.
This:
You purport to be putting forth another option yet offer nothing.
That, which is pure fiction, is one choice.
Anyone can offer something other than that one choice. I don't have to sign onto that dictatorial fabrication of falsehood above. I don't have to accept that bogus non-choice. There are many, many, many options, but, and this is knowable, at some point the choices do pare down to the last two, at any given moment, and a choice is then made, even if the choice made, is to take a nap.
A. Obey (the false non-choice)
B. Not A (the force of competition is driven by the desire to pick a higher quality choice, at a lower cost, which to some, is blind obedience)