I realize that, but their words and endorsements are analyzed and evaluated by you using your context, not theirs. You assign your meaning to their words, without trying to understand the meaning they intended based on their understanding of reality.


You are once again enjoying the comfort of binary thinking, i.e. it's either black or white. We watched George W. Bush use the same strategy on the American people, with all his preponderance of evidence, which nobody could possibly mistake. But almost everyone did.


Not apparently. Without a doubt. Uncertainty is a necessary consequence of the enormous complexity of our world, the deception humans are capable of, and our primitive understanding of true reality.

I cannot interpret people's minds, but I can interpret their words.



In another thread that I just recently visited, you made an outrageous comparison between bankster puppet Ghaddafi and the young Chinese man who stood down a line of tanks during the Tianmien Square uprising.

You are once again making an outrageous comparison, this time between the fat of preponderance that points to the joint scam of Assange and Wikileaks ... and the lack of preponderance that informs George Bush's antebellum preparations including the fake stories of yellow cake and WMDs.

If we're willing to ignore the evidence, then anything can be "something that nobody could possibly mistake".




Yes, much uncertainty exists on the surface of investigation. The complexity increases as one digs deeper, true enough. But complexity has another effect than you understand, Chico. Complexity reduces the degrees of freedom in the object of study. Effectively, this reduces the number of available interpretations from the original list of all possible interpretations. It is easier to study something when there is more information available on it. And more information is available the deeper one digs. More dots become available to connect. From these increased number of dots, more dot connections become available. Patterns appear and can be compared to pre-existing patterns. Soon enough, the number of arguments available to describe the state of the object of study are reduced and some resolution appears. Then more resolution, with fewer and fewer degrees of freedom to spin. Ultimately, the object stops spinning ... and it can be studied as if it were embedded in stone.
(Note: the object never really spins itself ... it is our view of it that spins and revolves.)

Dig deeper, Chico. Digging is merely the process of diminishing the uncertainty. Lose those degrees of freedom offered by improbable interpretations. Find the extra dots; the linear dot connections; the spatial array of dot connections ... and the suspended object will stop its apparent spinning and become visible with more or less fixed coordinates.

Pax

And you do, wrongly.


You're missing the point again. Your evidence is propaganda, just like Bush's evidence. Your evidence comes from the mainstream media, a recognized purveyor of propaganda. Note that the Internet is an extension of the MSM. Your certainty under these conditions is unwarranted.


That's absurd. Do you even deconstruct your own arguments? The more complexity, the more dots. The more dots, the more ways to connect them. Throw in errors, misinformation, disinformation, oversimplification, binary thinking, dogmatic beliefs, ego, and the desire for certainty, and you are hopelessly lost even as you confidently state that all roads lead to your answer.

Thanx for your opinion. I'll file it where it belongs, with respect, of course.



My evidence comes from a variety of sources, mostly alternative media. And not all alternative media. Mainly, that alternative media with a track record of reporting indisputable events, such as the Inside Job nature of the 9/11/2001 attacks, with some measure of analytic rigor and science.

You cannot be too familiar with rigor and science if you seriously want to compare the evidence for Wikileaks and Assange being a soup psyops ... with the nonexisting evidence for yellow cake and WMDs.



You really do not understand complexity as well as you should.

More information invites greater complexity for it creates more dots and dot connections. By the same token, progressively increasing complexity fixes the object being studied on a dais with fewer and fewer dynamic coordinates. As it were.

Preponderance increases the complexity of dots and dot connections ... preponderance also overwhelms any attempt to abuse it. Abuse is possible only when the object of study is allowed the freedom to spin. It is harder to study a spinning object than an object at rest. Each and every truth is an object at rest, my friend.

Pax

The evidence was not "nonexisting". It was inaccurate, misinterpreted, and even partially fabricated. It was also colored by confirmation bias, which you exhibit quite often.




"You really do not understand complexity as well as you should."

Look who's talking...

Losing discussion in semantics has always been a favorite rebuttal of yours. There is no confirmation bias when there is preponderance. Preponderance overwhelms anything and anyone who attacks it.

Neither the PSYCHOLOGICAL SCAM of Wikileaks/Assange nor the NONEXISTENT evidence that Bush paraded and converted into air strikes in Iraq (in whatever semantic form you want to dress it up, Chico) ... can change the judgementof the preponderance.



Don't confuse complexity in the object being studied (which contributes to the preponderance) ... with the lack of complexity in the observer performing the study (which contributes to the confusion).

Lack of complexity in the common observer ... even common observers with the potential for much more critical analysis than they are distributing ... is the ongoing bane of mankind.


Pax

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, James Hebin endorsing capitulation.

Funny, I could have sworn it was about the meek inheriting the Earth.

You are proving my point, Chico, with your semantic sidesteps and absurd comparisons. Not to mention an unwillingness to converge meaning where warranted (e.g. the CIA strongman template which captures Ghaddafi but a template from which you want to release him) ... and a zeal to diverge meaning where unwarranted, for example, finding preponderance such as the Wikileaks/Assange psychological soup ops in false equilibrium with preposterous stories like yellow cake and WMDs.

Your defense of James Hebin mirrors your defense of other agents of the bankster empire in the worst case (or idiots, in the best case) including Assange and Lendeman. A defense based on a personal love for uncertainty, warranted and otherwise. There are no commitments in uncertainty ... not to truths ... not to facts ... just an ongoing bliss.

The meek are wreaking havoc across the alternative forums. So be it. No one said that the journey to critical mass awareness would be a sprint. The best we can hope for is that it doesn't become a marathon.

Here's hoping you fall out of love with unwarranted uncertainty. You would be an asset to the truths if that would happen. Cheers.

Pax

That was just your thread title, and a satirical one at that.


Absolutely wrong, Zook. You are thinking of ignorance. Uncertainty allows for commitments at any time, but with a nimbleness born of an open and adaptive mind.


It's not the meek. It's the dogmatic. It's the people certain of their truth. You are one of them, my friend. Try as I might, I cannot dissuade you from your conviction. You have the faith of a priest that is married to his religion and cannot escape its all-encompassing pull. We have seen the same mindset at Avalon, at Atticus1, at Nexus, and at Universal Spectrum. We have even seen it here, with the ridiculous dogma of "private information" dividing and conquering the forum. Another dogma that could not find a comfortable home here is the political alliance, where friendships are exchanged like party favors in an attempt to climb the hierarchical ladder. This too was rampant at the first four forums I mentioned, but not at UP. You could suck up all you wanted to administrator Chico here, but there was no reciprocal payoff as so many were expecting. I would attack or defend ideas based on the merit of the message, not on the friendship or political favors offered by the messenger. No one had an inside track to special favors from the forum founder and administrator, and that was by my design. There was almost no hierarchy, there was no indebtedness, and there were no impositions, obligations, or inequality. And people couldn't handle it. They could easily handle the sociopathic game-playing for recognition and personal gain that they were so familiar with, but they couldn't handle equality and truth.


Thanks for the hearty laugh I enjoyed after reading that one! I love how you turn my criticisms of you back onto me with the clockwork of a soci... ...veteran forum officer.

True enough ... but the topic was never limited to James Hebin, his moronic concept of individual freedom, or USUFRUCT. Read my first post again. It was about the meek minds that resist the hard truths ... and how the hard truths can still will out in spite of this resistance.



Ignorance shares the same bankruptcy of commitment as uncertainty, no argument there. Getting back to uncertainty, Chico, that's a state of being. We must then choose a path to get out of this state. The path between states is the commitment. We can commit to bringing things out of the state of uncertainty, e.g. genuine commitment to the truths. Or we can commit to bringing things into the state of uncertainty, e.g. genuine commitment against the truths, after all, the truths by definition are points of certainty. The logic is inescapable, Chico.

Unfortunately, the logic is unpopular ... because while the meek have the population numbers to swing the popularity (of any proposition), they rarely understand logic, much less be driven by it. The meek are instinctive creatures, not logical creatures.



Like I said, if I allow you to maintain your delusions about me, and my apparent dogma, we can still maintain a space for the truths to will out. That said, my main faith is in the quality of my own discernment. If you perceive that as religion, so be it.



You can maintain your delusions as you see fit ... because your delusions do not affect my truthseeking. But I agree with you, back-channel snorkeling is rampant in the aforementioned forums. That said, I'm here at United
People now because it has the least bit of snorkeling, and not because it is immune to snorkeling.

Ultimately, the defenders of equality and truths will manifest as such, as will the impostors. That fact alone keeps me trudging forth with my quest for the hard truths and my (warranted) certainty. Your preference for unwarranted uncertainty will then put you in the light you have earned for yourself.

The inherent karma of the Universe is a thing to behold.



Encouraging others to better ways, often reaches for words and phrases familiar to those others. If I'm throwing back the same phrases/criticisms back at you that you had thrown at me ... that is a form of encouragement using those things that you understand. It need not be the manipulations of a soci ... veteran forum officer.

The state of paranoia is a sad convergence.

Pax