I really tried to read this post UncleZook, unfortunately your usual mind numbing BS prevented me from doing so!

I challenge your "standards of truth investigation" which I seriously doubt is where you "find your stride" methinks it would be more accurate to say "find your stroke" which I also suspect to be a very short one!

Anyhoo, as time constraints permit, I think it would be fun to start this challenge with a re-examination of your documented "standards of truth investigation" prior to and following the fall of the now infamous King n Queen of Nexus2012!!!

By this, I take it you mean Zook's lack of truth investigation into the actions of the Nexus King and Queen, where he actually defended them against all accusations. In Zook's defense, we know he is very loyal to his friends, and we know he did eventually break with the Nexus hierarchy, though he was one of the last to do so. Also to his credit, he was quicker and more decisive in his break with Avalon / Bill Ryan.

We all make mistakes, but we can all learn from them.

Like Zook, the other Nexus mods at that time were also troubled by the difficult choices they faced. If it weren't for a little bird whispering in Jenci's ear, the tipping point might have never been reached.

Loyalty is no excuse for prevarication Chico, which unfortunately for UncleZook has been extensively documented here on this forum for all to read.

It also seems his challenge was incomplete, it would have been more accurate for him to have written: I welcome challenges to my standards of truth investigation, accept from "andywight"!

After looking up prevarication (again), I concede the argument. I think you are mostly right on that.

You assume that I have changed my explanation of the Nexus situation. Things happened approximately as I described them (no one has perfect recall so I won't claim exactness). There was no prevarication on my part.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prevaricate

beginExcerpt
pre·var·i·cate
   [pri-var-i-keyt] Show IPA
verb (used without object), pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing.
to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
end


You have not demonstrated intent to mislead on my part ... not even close. Richard and Celine still stand above the innuendo that has been placed against them. They have their flaws, Chico, but so have you ... and I have mine. Whatever transpired at Nexus happened within the narrative of flawed behavior, including perhaps the flaw of subconsciously/involuntarily prioritizing loyalty over all other considerations. Perhaps. In any event, there was as much prevarication on my part as was decided by yourself and a few others, but none supported by the evidence itself.

That being said, potential flawed allegiance to friendship and trust, e.g. donning blinders on ... is not only not prevarication ... but is completely forgivable.

By contrast, prevarication in the duty of a murderous scam, e.g. apologia for Assange and Wikileaks ... is ignorant/idiotic at best, and sociopathic in the worst case.

To wit, Nexus was never a scam. Wikileaks only exists as a scam. So my support for Nexus is apples ... to your initial support (e.g. lending unwarranted credibility) for Wikileaks, which is oranges. But I am glad you have finally turned the worm on Wikileaks and have seen the light.

Pax Citrus

ps: As for Raggedy Andy, he stands indicted of all that I have stated about him to date. He truly exhibits sociopathic behavior. Not in the same degree as the consequential sociopaths that run and corrupt society, but in a degree compatible with minionship to corrupted society. All anyone needs to do is examine his posts (here and at other forums) to arrive at this conclusion.

Upon examining the definition for "prevaricate" that you posted, I believe the word "deliberately" is crucial. With that in mind, I don't think any of us can be found guilty of prevarication. We should really use simpler words that all understand easily, and we would avoid a great deal of misunderstanding.


Shall I caution against black and white thinking again? Ignorance may stem from innocence or deception or all manner of things without ever encountering idiocy. Your words nearly "prevaricate", i.e. "misstate or create an incorrect impression", though not deliberately, so you are once again saved. So even if you don't prevaricate, you do mislead or create an incorrect impression. This is where I often criticize you, though you nearly always fail to catch my meaning. Perhaps I too create an incorrect impression.


My position on Wikileaks is still one of uncertainty. It was never one of lending credibility. I have long understood that there is reason to see Wikileaks as a propaganda operation designed to create a certain mindset. Yet I am grateful for some of the information that has come out of Wikileaks, like the gunship video of the vicious slaughter in Iraq. Similarly, I know Wikipedia is also a sophisticated propaganda operation designed to create a certain worldview, yet I still use it as a source of information and knowledge, with the understanding that it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And that's my main point that I am trying to get through to you -- we do not have a source that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth! That is why certainty must always be questioned.


I would not say "indicted" any more than you are "indicted" by all that Andy has said about you to date. In the course of speaking freely, we will all make observations about each other that will fall somewhere on the scale between true and false. Black and white thinkers will see those observations as either strictly true or strictly false and react accordingly, usually with exaggerated consequences (I am reminded of the Janos tirade against me at Nexus that resulted in the "moderator recall" poll). More flexible thinkers will see some accuracy and some error in those same observations, the degree of which can vary based on available information (since none of us have complete information). The flexible thinkers will approach things with less certainty and more tolerance. I am moving more and more into that camp, and it pains me to see you continuing to spend your time in the black and white camp of certainty and intolerance. Perhaps it pains you to see me spend less and less time in that camp with you. The point is, no matter what camp we are in, we must not become stuck there, with minds closed and certain of our righteousness (in this case meaning the belief that we are right). That is the realm of religion, and mind control, and ultimately of the most insidious form of slavery, where "None are more enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free."

"I'm trying to free your mind, Neo." -- Morpheus

Well its fun to finally see you "in your stride" UncleZook although I was hoping for something a little better than denial and mudslinging!

Prevarication fits perfectly in this case. You've deliberately ignored the preponderance of evidence until just the other day when you had to concede ... but even in concession you are still trying to minimize the import of the scam. This ongoing minimization vectors back into prevarication. Standing against the face of evidence can be an indication of total idiocy. But you are way too intelligent for that. I am left to conclude that you are resisting the facts by choice and in doing so, misleading the readership. For what reason? Who knows. Personal ego?
I don't think you are a gatekeeper. But I am astounded that any intelligent mind would argue that the preponderance against Assange and Wikileaks is still worthy of debate.

Prevarication sticks on you in another area: Andy. That clown has done admirably by gatekeeping standards, defending mainstream media gatekeepers like Pilger and Fisk, giving Assange benefit of doubt way beyond that is warranted, posting controlled debate videos, etc. That you continue to encourage Andy after others have shown you reasons not to ... that you prefer Andy's moronic powers of observation against objective analysis ... well ... don't be too surprised if prevarication is a word that follows you around, Chico.

Neville Chamberlain was a prevaricator - among other things. Virtually all politicians are prevaricators. Ditto for lawyers, salesmen, talespinners, etc. So I wouldn't be too casual with the term or its implications on your longstanding integrity. Recognize it in yourself and you may yet rescue yourself from charges of giving comfort to the enemies of truth.



I conclude when the evidence warrants conclusions. You wait on the evidence. If one of us is a prevaricator, I am confident that I am not the one.

Maybe I should write a story about a boy who did not cry wolf - when warranted - and allowed the town to be eaten.





You can only claim uncertainty when the evidence is uncertain. When the evidence is conclusive, claiming uncertainty is either the fool's prerogative, the idiot's prerogative, or the intelligent man's burden.



This equivalence of the truthseeker and the gatekeeper ... is a prevarication. Your penchant for removing distinctions between dualities - in Andy and my case, the dualities of the gatekeeper and the truthseeker, the sociopath and the anti-sociopath, the coward and the courageous, the mindless and the mindful, the feeler and the thinker, the spinner and the observer, etc. - is further evidence of prevarication. For instance, the realty is dualistic whereas your representation of it, Chico, is unification.

Alas, in distinction we find good ... and we find bad. When we look for good in bad, and bad in good, we
turn reality on its head.



The pegging of a critical thinker into the extreme positions of black and white thinking as a counterargument time and again is regrettable. I expected more, especially from one who has an equal or greater brain. Alas, expectation oft leads to disappointment.

Add another to the pantheon of spaghetti sages ... where the criterion of flexibility is the paramount arbiter and which overrides the criteria of preponderance.


Pax Gymnastia

ps: Just finished watching the Olympic Marathon. The organizers must be morons for they concluded the marathon outside the Olympic Stadium. Whatever happened to tradition and having the final meters inside the stadium to be showered by the cheers of humanity?

ps: Forgive me, Chico, for quickly concluding that the organizers are morons. In this case, the evidence is not sufficient. I'll try and show more flexibility in my conclusions in the future, especially when warranted.

Well, I think we've beat this one into the ground, Zook. You apparently are a black and white thinker that deals in dualities and binary analysis, while I apparently am a prevaricator that resists facts by choice and misleads my readership. It's interesting to note that I was once very much a black and white thinker that dealt in dualities and binary analysis. I have had to change upon realizing the extent of the deception and manipulation ocurring in the world through propaganda and mind control, originating from a sociopathic intelligence, whether it be human or not. I have had to adopt the position of questioning everything and dismissing nothing, which includes questioning my own certainty about my current beliefs. That could be construed as ignoring facts and misleading my readership, but that is certainly not my deliberate intent.

Somehow, we generally agree on a broad spectrum of issues, including the prevelance of sophisticated false-flag operations like 9/11 and Wikileaks, and the depth of the insidious deception and manipulation occurring in the world. We differ a bit with respect to Assange and Pilger and other individuals, in that I think the details of their interactions with their situations are more complex than we realize. In other words, I claim that we do not have the full story of why individuals do what they do. From reading your words about me and the erroneous conclusions that you draw, it is clear to me that you do not have the full story of why I do what I do, and I think the same is true regarding your take on Andy. And no doubt, the same can be said about Andy's or Chico's take on Uncle Zook.

That said, I believe your heart is in a good place and your intent is sincere. You are open to criticism though very defensive and responsive in kind, which is the unavoidable ego asserting itself. Nevertheless, you are an asset to any forum you frequent because you do help people learn. Whether they learn to be more like you or less like you is unimportant, as long as they are learning. I very much appreciate your participation in these discussions, and in all the discussions we have ever had. Thanks, and here's hoping you don't get too frustrated and stop.

Let me clarify. I think you've chosen to not accept the facts of Assange and Wikileaks. I also think that you didn't make the choice to mislead the readership, but for your own reasons of which I can only guess at. Ego?
Fear of the greater implications?? Supporting Andy?? Etc. Alas, even without sinister intent, your choice to perambulate about the facts of Wikileaks ... and about the facts of "Mendax" Assange, celebrated marionette of the mendacious moneylenders ... does end up misleading the readership.

Our actions often yield results that are not always planned.



Nope. I hope my clarification above dispels the notion of sinister intent on your part. I'm as much befuddled as to the reasons you choose to be flexible about Wikileaks and Assange when the evidence screams for indictment.



I fully understand that and have taken it into account. But in the end, the evidence carries the righteous arguments, not just my own opinions and evaluations. Pilger, Fisk, Assange, Wikileaks, Anonymous, etc <------------ these individuals and organizations have been exposed by evidence of their complicity, either as accomplices before the fact ... and in some cases, after.



I make my remarks based on what I see in the probability cloud ... I rarely fix evidence at any singular isolated locus in the cloud. I'm a preponderance man, as it were. And the radii of my probability clouds are usually smaller than the maximum radius threshold that can sustain a rational indictment. It appears that you're not satisfied until the radii disappear into points, Chico. While laudable, that degree of certainty is usually nonexistent in human communications ... and, demanding it, IMO, is foolhardy.

Paralysis through analysis, as it were. The psychopaths that run the show are pleased as punch whenever the masses paralyze themselves, whether by cognitive dissonance, ideological subversion, or unattainable levels of certainty in the study of a crime(s) ... the psychopaths being the dominant criminal class.



Likewise Chico.

FWIW, I'm not here to abuse people but to get at the truths ... but we are operating in the crunch of time and the munch of monsters ... so overly zealous pursuits of certainty - say, in the pleasure of Chico - are an unaffordable luxury.

Pax Stella Artois

ps: Indeed, I can make the case - give me three Stellas to get going - that much of the corruption that we see today has been enabled by our acquiescent attitude towards the criminal class, e.g. as we allowed their justice system (bought and paid for with blood money) to twiddle thumbs and protract proceedings beyond the objective threshold certainties of crime.