Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations - Page 48

Tomtomkent · 25th February 2012, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

When looking at conspiracy theories it's useful to examine extreme possibilities or else the risk is that one gets stuck on a certain level.

And yet you don't apply that to the idea of frivolous court cases. Why? Oh, because you ask a special pleading when dealing with a conspiracy, not nothing as mundane as actual court cases?

Double standard and inconsistentancy noted.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

And yet you don't apply that to the idea of frivolous court cases. Why? Oh, because you ask a special pleading when dealing with a conspiracy, not nothing as mundane as actual court cases?

Double standard and inconsistentancy noted.

An extreme possibility is that the claims in the lawsuit are valid! So that is consistent with the idea of examining extreme possibilities.

kevsta · 25th February 2012, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

or else the risk is that one gets stuck on a certain level.

I think this has already happened to you..

"the more stupid the theory, the more I want to believe it level"

Tomtomkent · 25th February 2012, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

An extreme possibility is that the claims in the lawsuit are valid! So that is consistent with the idea of examining extreme possibilities.

That was not your stated possition. You refused, repeatedly, to accept the possibility of frivilous cases reaching court. You even called it stupid. Why are you now trying to redefdine your trolling "argument"? Why has something that was common sense according to you now an extreme possibility?

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

That was not your stated possition. You refused, repeatedly, to accept the possibility of frivilous cases reaching court. You even called it stupid. Why are you now trying to redefdine your trolling "argument"? Why has something that was common sense according to you now an extreme possibility?

Yes, if the lawsuit is a money scam of some sort then it looks like a stupid scam to me. There is a third possibility that Keenan has been fooled and used for something other than for a money scam.

By an extreme possibility that the claims in the lawsuit are valid I mean that it is something very much outside ordinary public knowledge. I still think that possibility exists. I have changed my mind over time about how possible that actually is. At the moment I see the possibility as slight but still worth to consider.

Tomtomkent · 25th February 2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Yes, if the lawsuit is a money scam of some sort then it looks like a stupid scam to me. There is a third possibility that Keenan has been fooled and used for something other than for a money scam.

By an extreme possibility that the claims in the lawsuit are valid I mean that it is something very much outside ordinary public knowledge. I still think that possibility exists. I have changed my mind over time about how possible that actually is. At the moment I see the possibility as slight but still worth to consider.

And again, you consider the "extreme possibility", but discounted a regular occurence (any frivelous law suit) as "stupid" on the assumption there would be some kind of grading for valid claims. So again it boils down to a double standard: some things are discounted for being stupid, yet you insist on advocating far stupider ideas.

Why give CTs special credence while expecting less stupid cases to not reach court?

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

And again, you consider the "extreme possibility", but discounted a regular occurence (any frivelous law suit) as "stupid" on the assumption there would be some kind of grading for valid claims. So again it boils down to a double standard: some things are discounted for being stupid, yet you insist on advocating far stupider ideas.

Why give CTs special credence while expecting less stupid cases to not reach court?

I certainly don't rule out the possibility of a money fraud. It's just that it seems like a crazy way of attempting such fraud. The elaborate boxes and cylinders could perhaps be necessary as a part of how the bonds are managed. Maybe such containers serve a purpose in the whole way of verifying bonds. Then it would make more sense if it was a money scam, because then that's a requirement rather than some fancy chrome around the bonds themselves.

SpitfireIX · 25th February 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I'm not sure J. Edgar Hoover was talking about Communism here:

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -- J. Edgar Hoover

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/j.+edgar+hoover

Preceding two sentences and correct quotation:

"Because of [the communist] the menace of communism in this country will remain a menace until the American people make themselves aware of the techniques of communism. No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. [bolding mine]" (source)

Fail.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

;8057111And I'm not sure Woodrow Wilson was speaking about monopolies here:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

Succeeding paragraph:

Quote:

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him.

(source)

Fail.

Craig4 · 25th February 2012, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I certainly don't rule out the possibility of a money fraud. It's just that it seems like a crazy way of attempting such fraud. The elaborate boxes and cylinders could perhaps be necessary as a part of how the bonds are managed. Maybe such containers serve a purpose in the whole way of verifying bonds. Then it would make more sense if it was a money scam, because then that's a requirement rather than some fancy chrome around the bonds themselves.

No, this kind of fraud is actually pretty common.

Tomtomkent · 25th February 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I certainly don't rule out the possibility of a money fraud. It's just that it seems like a crazy way of attempting such fraud. The elaborate boxes and cylinders could perhaps be necessary as a part of how the bonds are managed. Maybe such containers serve a purpose in the whole way of verifying bonds. Then it would make more sense if it was a money scam, because then that's a requirement rather than some fancy chrome around the bonds themselves.

Why crazy? And more or less crazy than the impossible self defeating conspiracies you advocate?

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Preceding two sentences and correct quotation:

"Because of [the communist] the menace of communism in this country will remain a menace until the American people make themselves aware of the techniques of communism. No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. [bolding mine]" (source)

Fail.

Succeeding paragraph:

(source)

Fail.

First of all do you believe Communism is a conspiracy that people cannot believe exist?

And secondly, do you think the largest men in business would be afraid of their own or other monopolies?

ETA: And thirdly, I wrote that I'm not sure. So how could my uncertainty be a failure? No, it's your logic that fails here.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

No, this kind of fraud is actually pretty common.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Why crazy? And more or less crazy than the impossible self defeating conspiracies you advocate?

Trillion dollar lawsuit? Against a long list of defendants, including very prominent people, the United Nations and the Italian government?

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 10:18 AM

Anyone can sue anyone for any amount. You read far too much into the fact that some guy wrote up a complaint and filed it with the court.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Anyone can sue anyone for any amount. You read far too much into the fact that some guy wrote up a complaint and filed it with the court.

What is a bit inconsistent it that when Fulford beforehand said that such lawsuit would be filed, people didn't believe him and when no such lawsuit was filed people accused him of being a fraud. Then later when such outrageous lawsuit DID get filed people now say that this is something that happens all the time and nothing to be concerned about.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What is a bit inconsistent it that when Fulford beforehand said that such lawsuit would be filed, people didn't believe him and when no such lawsuit was filed people accused him of being a fraud. Then later when such outrageous lawsuit DID get filed people now say that this is something that happens all the time and nothing to be concerned about.

Different people saying different things. Get over it.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Different people saying different things. Get over it.

Unless they are a hive mind of debunkers practicing group-think.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Unless they are a hive mind of debunkers practicing group-think.

Right, different people saying different things at different times is an example of group-think. And black is white, up is down, and you're sincere.

Tomtomkent · 25th February 2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Trillion dollar lawsuit? Against a long list of defendants, including very prominent people, the United Nations and the Italian government?

Your point is? That is the amount he claims to want. His target out of courtfor a settlement will bbe less.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Right, different people saying different things at different times is an example of group-think. And black is white, up is down, and you're sincere.

You missed the word 'unless'. Ha ha.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Your point is? That is the amount he claims to want. His target out of courtfor a settlement will bbe less.

My point is that I don't think it's an ordinary lawsuit. I haven't checked for similar lawsuits but I doubt that many exist.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

You missed the word 'unless'. Ha ha.

You missed the point entirely. Your "inconsistency" is simply the natural variation of opinion. You expected people to behave the same. If they don't, they're being "inconsistent." If the do, it's "group-think." All roads lead to conspiracy in your world. That's why no one takes you seriously.

SpitfireIX · 25th February 2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

First of all do you believe Communism is a conspiracy that people cannot believe exist?

Whether I believe it is irrelevant; clearly Hoover (or, more likely, his ghost writer) meant it, from the context.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

And secondly, do you think the largest men in business would be afraid of their own or other monopolies?

Again, whether I believe it is irrelevant, it's clear from the context that that is what Wilson meant.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

ETA: And thirdly, I wrote that I'm not sure. So how could my uncertainty be a failure? No, it's your logic that fails here.

Because it's crystal clear from the context that that was what was meant. So if you're unsure, you either didn't bother to do any research (though I believe the the Wilson quote was explained to you previously), or else you're being deliberately obtuse.

ETA: I will say that I believe communist and monopolistic conspiracies are considerably less implausible than your "shadow government."

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You missed the point entirely. Your "inconsistency" is simply the natural variation of opinion. You expected people to behave the same. If they don't, they're being "inconsistent." If the do, it's "group-think." All roads lead to conspiracy in your world. That's why no one takes you seriously.

Cop out. You missed 'unless'. Read your own reply and you will find that it matches what I wrote without the word unless in the beginning of it. He he.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Whether I believe it is irrelevant; clearly Hoover (or, more likely, his ghost writer) meant it, from the context.

Again, whether I believe it is irrelevant, it's clear from the context that that is what Wilson meant.

Because it's crystal clear from the context that that was what was meant. So if you're unsure, you either didn't bother to do any research (though I believe the the Wilson quote was explained to you previously), or else you're being deliberately obtuse.

ETA: I will say that I believe communist and monopolistic conspiracies are considerably less implausible than your "shadow government."

I'm still not convinced it's crystal clear. If you are correct, what SINGLE monopoly was the quote about? Because it talks about a single entity that some of the most powerful men in business were very afraid of.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

My point is that I don't think it's an ordinary lawsuit. I haven't checked for similar lawsuits but I doubt that many exist.

Translation: I made something up, immediately believed it, and I never checked to see whether it might be true.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Cop out.

Evasion. You got caught reasoning tautologically and now you don't want to have to deal with it.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Evasion. You got caught reasoning tautologically and now you don't want to have to deal with it.

You wrote about different people saying different things. My reply was: "Unless they are a hive mind of debunkers practicing group-think."

It was a teasing comment about how many members here act like a hive mind. Maybe not so polite of me, but there you have it.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It was a teasing comment about how many members here act like a hive mind.

And mine was a serious comment that you interpret both individuality and consistency in all cases to mean that everyone except for you is closed-minded. You reason tautologically in favor of conspiracy theorists. That makes you hive-minded with the conspiracy theorists you ignorantly parrot, closed-minded in your inability to see beyond your own beliefs, and therefore generally unworthy of serious attention.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

And mine was a serious comment that you interpret both individuality and consistency in all cases to mean that everyone except for you is closed-minded. You reason tautologically in favor of conspiracy theorists. That makes you hive-minded with the conspiracy theorists you ignorantly parrot, closed-minded in your inability to see beyond your own beliefs, and therefore generally unworthy of serious attention.

Again, you missed the 'unless', which means I actually agreed with your initial statement! You simply said that different people can have different ideas and that's a valid statement of course. I think you are trying to complicate it more than it really is in a desperate attempt to defend yourself. Ha, you are afraid of losing an argument. Like a little child.

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Again, you missed the 'unless'...

Isn't it clear by this point that I don't care?

Quote:

I think you are trying to complicate it more than it really is in a desperate attempt to defend yourself. Ha, you are afraid of losing an argument. Like a little child.

Again, what makes you think I take you seriously?

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Isn't it clear by this point that I don't care?

Again, what makes you think I take you seriously?

You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care. Will you continue to defend yourself against my knee-jerk reactions?

abaddon · 25th February 2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care. Will you continue to defend yourself against my knee-jerk reactions?

Hard to resist such an obvious chew toy

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by abaddon

Hard to resist such an obvious chew toy

And when the chew toy is winning what does that tell about you? Prepare to get humiliated!!!

JayUtah · 25th February 2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care.

What about anything I'm doing seems like a defense? I'm simply giving you more rope with which to hang yourself.

Quote:

Will you continue to defend yourself against my knee-jerk reactions?

Only if they continue to entertain.

SpitfireIX · 25th February 2012, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

And when the chew toy is winning what does that tell about you? Prepare to get humiliated!!!

Craig4 · 25th February 2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Trillion dollar lawsuit? Against a long list of defendants, including very prominent people, the United Nations and the Italian government?

No, getting tricked into paying for the privileged of cashing in fake bonds.

Craig4 · 25th February 2012, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

And when the chew toy is winning what does that tell about you? Prepare to get humiliated!!!

Not a situation likely to come up with you.

Cl1mh4224rd · 25th February 2012, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care.

That's not ferociousness, Anders. That's just a person operating on an intellectual level far above your own.

LightinDarkness · 25th February 2012, 11:05 PM

You know, if I was a lawyer and didn't mind getting disbarred (maybe I had made all money and was ready for retirement), I'd use my creative fantasy story writing skills to "respond" on behalf of "The Illuminati" and other non-existent groups against this fake lawsuit. We could go back and forth and I could keep making even more grandiose claims about how the Illuminati were now demanding $10 quadtrillion from the Dragon Family. Since none of these entities actually exist, it would be funny watching the tin-foil hat brigade respond to it all.

Anders Lindman · 25th February 2012, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

That's not ferociousness, Anders. That's just a person operating on an intellectual level far above your own.

Intellectual superiority is a Nazi fantasy. The reality is that all people are on the same level.

25th February 2012, 02:48 AM	#1881
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,318	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman When looking at conspiracy theories it's useful to examine extreme possibilities or else the risk is that one gets stuck on a certain level. And yet you don't apply that to the idea of frivolous court cases. Why? Oh, because you ask a special pleading when dealing with a conspiracy, not nothing as mundane as actual court cases? Double standard and inconsistentancy noted.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th February 2012, 03:18 AM	#1883
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,575	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman or else the risk is that one gets stuck on a certain level. I think this has already happened to you.. "the more stupid the theory, the more I want to believe it level"
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

25th February 2012, 03:33 AM	#1884
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,318	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman An extreme possibility is that the claims in the lawsuit are valid! So that is consistent with the idea of examining extreme possibilities. That was not your stated possition. You refused, repeatedly, to accept the possibility of frivilous cases reaching court. You even called it stupid. Why are you now trying to redefdine your trolling "argument"? Why has something that was common sense according to you now an extreme possibility?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th February 2012, 06:29 AM	#1886
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,318	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Yes, if the lawsuit is a money scam of some sort then it looks like a stupid scam to me. There is a third possibility that Keenan has been fooled and used for something other than for a money scam. By an extreme possibility that the claims in the lawsuit are valid I mean that it is something very much outside ordinary public knowledge. I still think that possibility exists. I have changed my mind over time about how possible that actually is. At the moment I see the possibility as slight but still worth to consider. And again, you consider the "extreme possibility", but discounted a regular occurence (any frivelous law suit) as "stupid" on the assumption there would be some kind of grading for valid claims. So again it boils down to a double standard: some things are discounted for being stupid, yet you insist on advocating far stupider ideas. Why give CTs special credence while expecting less stupid cases to not reach court?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th February 2012, 08:43 AM	#1888
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,831	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I'm not sure J. Edgar Hoover was talking about Communism here: "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -- J. Edgar Hoover http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/j.+edgar+hoover Preceding two sentences and correct quotation: "Because of [the communist] the menace of communism in this country will remain a menace until the American people make themselves aware of the techniques of communism. No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. [bolding mine]" (source) Fail. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman ;8057111And I'm not sure Woodrow Wilson was speaking about monopolies here: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson Succeeding paragraph: Quote: They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. (source) Fail.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

25th February 2012, 03:00 AM	#1882
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent And yet you don't apply that to the idea of frivolous court cases. Why? Oh, because you ask a special pleading when dealing with a conspiracy, not nothing as mundane as actual court cases? Double standard and inconsistentancy noted. An extreme possibility is that the claims in the lawsuit are valid! So that is consistent with the idea of examining extreme possibilities.

25th February 2012, 04:52 AM	#1885
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent That was not your stated possition. You refused, repeatedly, to accept the possibility of frivilous cases reaching court. You even called it stupid. Why are you now trying to redefdine your trolling "argument"? Why has something that was common sense according to you now an extreme possibility? Yes, if the lawsuit is a money scam of some sort then it looks like a stupid scam to me. There is a third possibility that Keenan has been fooled and used for something other than for a money scam. By an extreme possibility that the claims in the lawsuit are valid I mean that it is something very much outside ordinary public knowledge. I still think that possibility exists. I have changed my mind over time about how possible that actually is. At the moment I see the possibility as slight but still worth to consider.

25th February 2012, 06:49 AM	#1887
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent And again, you consider the "extreme possibility", but discounted a regular occurence (any frivelous law suit) as "stupid" on the assumption there would be some kind of grading for valid claims. So again it boils down to a double standard: some things are discounted for being stupid, yet you insist on advocating far stupider ideas. Why give CTs special credence while expecting less stupid cases to not reach court? I certainly don't rule out the possibility of a money fraud. It's just that it seems like a crazy way of attempting such fraud. The elaborate boxes and cylinders could perhaps be necessary as a part of how the bonds are managed. Maybe such containers serve a purpose in the whole way of verifying bonds. Then it would make more sense if it was a money scam, because then that's a requirement rather than some fancy chrome around the bonds themselves.

25th February 2012, 09:15 AM	#1889
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,396	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I certainly don't rule out the possibility of a money fraud. It's just that it seems like a crazy way of attempting such fraud. The elaborate boxes and cylinders could perhaps be necessary as a part of how the bonds are managed. Maybe such containers serve a purpose in the whole way of verifying bonds. Then it would make more sense if it was a money scam, because then that's a requirement rather than some fancy chrome around the bonds themselves. No, this kind of fraud is actually pretty common.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,396

25th February 2012, 09:50 AM	#1890
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,318	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I certainly don't rule out the possibility of a money fraud. It's just that it seems like a crazy way of attempting such fraud. The elaborate boxes and cylinders could perhaps be necessary as a part of how the bonds are managed. Maybe such containers serve a purpose in the whole way of verifying bonds. Then it would make more sense if it was a money scam, because then that's a requirement rather than some fancy chrome around the bonds themselves. Why crazy? And more or less crazy than the impossible self defeating conspiracies you advocate?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th February 2012, 09:58 AM	#1891
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX Preceding two sentences and correct quotation: "Because of [the communist] the menace of communism in this country will remain a menace until the American people make themselves aware of the techniques of communism. No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. [bolding mine]" (source) Fail. Succeeding paragraph: (source) Fail. First of all do you believe Communism is a conspiracy that people cannot believe exist? And secondly, do you think the largest men in business would be afraid of their own or other monopolies? ETA: And thirdly, I wrote that I'm not sure. So how could my uncertainty be a failure? No, it's your logic that fails here.
	Last edited by Anders Lindman; 25th February 2012 at 10:10 AM.

25th February 2012, 10:13 AM	#1892
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by Craig4 No, this kind of fraud is actually pretty common. Originally Posted by Tomtomkent Why crazy? And more or less crazy than the impossible self defeating conspiracies you advocate? Trillion dollar lawsuit? Against a long list of defendants, including very prominent people, the United Nations and the Italian government?

25th February 2012, 10:18 AM	#1893
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Anyone can sue anyone for any amount. You read far too much into the fact that some guy wrote up a complaint and filed it with the court.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 10:36 AM	#1894
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah Anyone can sue anyone for any amount. You read far too much into the fact that some guy wrote up a complaint and filed it with the court. What is a bit inconsistent it that when Fulford beforehand said that such lawsuit would be filed, people didn't believe him and when no such lawsuit was filed people accused him of being a fraud. Then later when such outrageous lawsuit DID get filed people now say that this is something that happens all the time and nothing to be concerned about.

25th February 2012, 10:39 AM	#1895
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman What is a bit inconsistent it that when Fulford beforehand said that such lawsuit would be filed, people didn't believe him and when no such lawsuit was filed people accused him of being a fraud. Then later when such outrageous lawsuit DID get filed people now say that this is something that happens all the time and nothing to be concerned about. Different people saying different things. Get over it.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 10:44 AM	#1896
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah Different people saying different things. Get over it. Unless they are a hive mind of debunkers practicing group-think.

25th February 2012, 11:08 AM	#1897
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Unless they are a hive mind of debunkers practicing group-think. Right, different people saying different things at different times is an example of group-think. And black is white, up is down, and you're sincere.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 11:14 AM	#1898
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,318	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Trillion dollar lawsuit? Against a long list of defendants, including very prominent people, the United Nations and the Italian government? Your point is? That is the amount he claims to want. His target out of courtfor a settlement will bbe less.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th February 2012, 11:15 AM	#1899
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah Right, different people saying different things at different times is an example of group-think. And black is white, up is down, and you're sincere. You missed the word 'unless'. Ha ha.

25th February 2012, 11:17 AM	#1900
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent Your point is? That is the amount he claims to want. His target out of courtfor a settlement will bbe less. My point is that I don't think it's an ordinary lawsuit. I haven't checked for similar lawsuits but I doubt that many exist.

25th February 2012, 11:47 AM	#1901
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman You missed the word 'unless'. Ha ha. You missed the point entirely. Your "inconsistency" is simply the natural variation of opinion. You expected people to behave the same. If they don't, they're being "inconsistent." If the do, it's "group-think." All roads lead to conspiracy in your world. That's why no one takes you seriously.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 11:48 AM	#1902
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,831	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman First of all do you believe Communism is a conspiracy that people cannot believe exist? Whether I believe it is irrelevant; clearly Hoover (or, more likely, his ghost writer) meant it, from the context. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman And secondly, do you think the largest men in business would be afraid of their own or other monopolies? Again, whether I believe it is irrelevant, it's clear from the context that that is what Wilson meant. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman ETA: And thirdly, I wrote that I'm not sure. So how could my uncertainty be a failure? No, it's your logic that fails here. Because it's crystal clear from the context that that was what was meant. So if you're unsure, you either didn't bother to do any research (though I believe the the Wilson quote was explained to you previously), or else you're being deliberately obtuse. ETA: I will say that I believe communist and monopolistic conspiracies are considerably less implausible than your "shadow government."
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya Last edited by SpitfireIX; 25th February 2012 at 11:51 AM.

25th February 2012, 11:53 AM	#1903
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah You missed the point entirely. Your "inconsistency" is simply the natural variation of opinion. You expected people to behave the same. If they don't, they're being "inconsistent." If the do, it's "group-think." All roads lead to conspiracy in your world. That's why no one takes you seriously. Cop out. You missed 'unless'. Read your own reply and you will find that it matches what I wrote without the word unless in the beginning of it. He he.

25th February 2012, 11:56 AM	#1904
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX Whether I believe it is irrelevant; clearly Hoover (or, more likely, his ghost writer) meant it, from the context. Again, whether I believe it is irrelevant, it's clear from the context that that is what Wilson meant. Because it's crystal clear from the context that that was what was meant. So if you're unsure, you either didn't bother to do any research (though I believe the the Wilson quote was explained to you previously), or else you're being deliberately obtuse. ETA: I will say that I believe communist and monopolistic conspiracies are considerably less implausible than your "shadow government." I'm still not convinced it's crystal clear. If you are correct, what SINGLE monopoly was the quote about? Because it talks about a single entity that some of the most powerful men in business were very afraid of.

25th February 2012, 12:03 PM	#1905
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman My point is that I don't think it's an ordinary lawsuit. I haven't checked for similar lawsuits but I doubt that many exist. Translation: I made something up, immediately believed it, and I never checked to see whether it might be true.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 12:04 PM	#1906
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Cop out. Evasion. You got caught reasoning tautologically and now you don't want to have to deal with it.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 12:33 PM	#1907
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah Evasion. You got caught reasoning tautologically and now you don't want to have to deal with it. You wrote about different people saying different things. My reply was: "Unless they are a hive mind of debunkers practicing group-think." It was a teasing comment about how many members here act like a hive mind. Maybe not so polite of me, but there you have it.

25th February 2012, 03:02 PM	#1908
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman It was a teasing comment about how many members here act like a hive mind. And mine was a serious comment that you interpret both individuality and consistency in all cases to mean that everyone except for you is closed-minded. You reason tautologically in favor of conspiracy theorists. That makes you hive-minded with the conspiracy theorists you ignorantly parrot, closed-minded in your inability to see beyond your own beliefs, and therefore generally unworthy of serious attention.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 03:40 PM	#1909
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah And mine was a serious comment that you interpret both individuality and consistency in all cases to mean that everyone except for you is closed-minded. You reason tautologically in favor of conspiracy theorists. That makes you hive-minded with the conspiracy theorists you ignorantly parrot, closed-minded in your inability to see beyond your own beliefs, and therefore generally unworthy of serious attention. Again, you missed the 'unless', which means I actually agreed with your initial statement! You simply said that different people can have different ideas and that's a valid statement of course. I think you are trying to complicate it more than it really is in a desperate attempt to defend yourself. Ha, you are afraid of losing an argument. Like a little child.

25th February 2012, 03:50 PM	#1910
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Again, you missed the 'unless'... Isn't it clear by this point that I don't care? Quote: I think you are trying to complicate it more than it really is in a desperate attempt to defend yourself. Ha, you are afraid of losing an argument. Like a little child. Again, what makes you think I take you seriously?
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 03:57 PM	#1911
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by JayUtah Isn't it clear by this point that I don't care? Again, what makes you think I take you seriously? You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care. Will you continue to defend yourself against my knee-jerk reactions?

25th February 2012, 04:14 PM	#1912
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,769	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care. Will you continue to defend yourself against my knee-jerk reactions? Hard to resist such an obvious chew toy
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,769	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

25th February 2012, 04:25 PM	#1913
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,819	Originally Posted by abaddon Hard to resist such an obvious chew toy And when the chew toy is winning what does that tell about you? Prepare to get humiliated!!!

25th February 2012, 05:14 PM	#1914
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman You sure defend yourself with remarkable ferociousness for someone who doesn't care. What about anything I'm doing seems like a defense? I'm simply giving you more rope with which to hang yourself. Quote: Will you continue to defend yourself against my knee-jerk reactions? Only if they continue to entertain.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,211

25th February 2012, 05:53 PM	#1915
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,831	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman And when the chew toy is winning what does that tell about you? Prepare to get humiliated!!!
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya