Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

So yet again you have an unshakeable belief on a topic when you know little or nothing about the relevant facts.

I have a shaky belief. Not unshakeable.

 

[Greedo]

Good FSM... I've been gone for a couple of weeks and when I saw a thread only a couple of days old, with 10 pages in CT, I knew It'd be a AL thread. I mean really... Why give this delusional troll all this time of yours? I admit, I've done it too, but this really puzzles me. Something about AL must be fascinating, I guess... Or it's comic entertainment.

 

[Garrison]

I have a shaky belief. Not unshakeable.

Your posts in this thread contradict that claim. It's been pointed out that your views of the 'Dragon Family' lawsuit are incorrect but you still refuse to acknowledge that as a fact.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Your posts in this thread contradict that claim. It's been pointed out that your views of the 'Dragon Family' lawsuit are incorrect but you still refuse to acknowledge that as a fact.

The lawsuit hasn't been officially dismissed yet as far as I know. And my hope is that this will be a huge mainstream media story. I admit that the odds for that are not very good, but anyway.

 

[JayUtah]

The lawsuit hasn't been officially dismissed yet as far as I know.

What does that have to do with your beliefs about it having been refuted?

And my hope is that this will be a huge mainstream media story. I admit that the odds for that are not very good, but anyway.

"U.S. District Court Dismisses Wacky Lawsuit"

No, if we reported every one of those, we'd need a whole newspaper just for that.

 

[Garrison]

The lawsuit hasn't been officially dismissed yet as far as I know. And my hope is that this will be a huge mainstream media story. I admit that the odds for that are not very good, but anyway.

Again why do you hope that when it's been explained that this most likely a frivolous lawsuit and that none of your ideas about it make sense?

 

[Anders Lindman]

What does that have to do with your beliefs about it having been refuted?

Again why do you hope that when it's been explained that this most likely a frivolous lawsuit and that none of your ideas about it make sense?

There is still a chance that the claims in the lawsuit are true.

 

[JayUtah]

There is still a chance that the claims in the lawsuit are true.

How much of a chance? How did you determine it?

 

[Anders Lindman]

How much of a chance? How did you determine it?

My guess is that the chance for the claims in the lawsuit being true is small. They could be true! I'm not willing to give up the possibility yet.

 

[JayUtah]

My guess is that the chance for the claims in the lawsuit being true is small.

Then why did you say you believed the lawsuit to be true? Oh, right -- because you simply want it to be true for the sake of your worldview.

Or do you no longer believe the lawsuit to be true?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Then why did you say you believed the lawsuit to be true? Oh, right -- because you simply want it to be true for the sake of your worldview.

Or do you no longer believe the lawsuit to be true?

It may be that I'm very biased in this case. I want the lawsuit to be true. So I'm willing to accept a low probability. Not very rational, although at the same time I have learned to be very open when it comes to conspiracy theories and be able to change my mind lightning fast.

 

[JayUtah]

It may be that I'm very biased in this case.

Yes, try exploring that meme more often when you debate.

I want the lawsuit to be true. So I'm willing to accept a low probability. Not very rational...

Agreed: not very rational. The problem is that whenever you try to argue anything, you equivocate among hope, belief, and fact. You either can't tell the differences among them, or you don't care about the differences.

...although at the same time I have learned to be very open when it comes to conspiracy theories...

You're apparently open to every conspiracy theory. That's part of the problem.

...and be able to change my mind lightning fast.

What value is there in bouncing between one hastily made-up idea after another?

 

[Anders Lindman]

What value is there in bouncing between one hastily made-up idea after another?

Conspiracy theories can be very tricky, with several layers, disinfo, controlled opposition, half-truths, smokescreens, detours and so on. And an easy way of dealing with all that mess is to just take in all kind of information and connect dots and replace dots along the way.

 

[JayUtah]

Conspiracy theories can be very tricky, with several layers, disinfo, controlled opposition, half-truths, smokescreens, detours and so on.

Everything you mentioned is just the frantic speculation put forward by conspiracy theorists for why their theories fail to match reality. Oh, it "must" be disinformation, it "must" be planted opposition, it "must" be a smokescreen. Just because you imagine a complex web of deceit, none of which you can prove, doesn't mean there's one really out there.

And an easy way of dealing with all that mess is to just take in all kind of information rumor, innuendo, and supposition and connect dots and replace dots along the way make up a bunch of nonsense about it.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Dancing David]

Some people seem to have a problem understanding the statement: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

Truth is not a democracy! A legal court cannot CHANGE the truth. In the Dragon Family lawsuit the bonds are either real or fake. Whatever any legal process determines doesn't change the initial fact one iota!!!

And the evidence that it matters and the suit is not a joke?

"Some guy said this"

 

[Dancing David]

Absolutely. And that's the job of the legal system. Not my job. I'm just adding some speculations about Vatican mind control and things like that.

You know Anders saying vatican mind control really does not help your case...

 

[Dancing David]

The bonds already exist you know. It's not the court that makes the bonds manifest out of thin air. And it should be pretty easy to check whether the bonds are genuine or false. Unless some messy conspiracy kicks in distorting the evidence.

Who says the bonds exist, and what provenance do they have?

besides this specious lawsuit that hasn't presented its evidence?

 

[Dancing David]

They are aware of the bonds (or the absence of the bonds). The term 'evidence' is redundant for those who already know the truth. What, for example, is the evidence for 2+2=4? What is the evidence for you having a body? What is the evidence for the existence of the sun?

That made me think that the truth is simple. It's all the disinfo, lies, smokescreens, secrecy and so on that makes the situation messy. What an enormous amount of effort people spend on sorting out mess that really only is a result of manipulation and protection strategies. And we usually take all immense friction and conflict as something normal! We really are an immature civilization.

How do you know that the person who claims to have the bonds is truthful?

Or that they were obtained in a legitimate fashion?

 

[Dancing David]

You wrote that I'm not taken seriously.

Anders, present evidence and you will be taken seriously.

 

[Dancing David]

The claim in the lawsuit is that the bonds are real. They are (at least some of them) special bonds it seems (pages 8-9):

"Upon information and belief, in order to effectuate this process, the Notes were printed to appear as if they were not produced from official origin and bear obvious imperfections, therefore easily deniable. However, when proper procedures are followed, the number of the Note and other linking identic data allows ultimate authentication and verification through the Federal Reserve System screening process and the presenting of the Note under the immunity shield allows effective use." -- Case 1:11-cv-08500-JFK Document 1

Sorry, these bonds were created to look like fakes , so even if they are fakes they are genuine?

And that is why it is specious.