Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Craig4]

How do you know? This forum is public. There will always be ardent skeptics who disbelieve basically everything except what CNN tells them. On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe almost anything. So it's a bell-shaped curve and surely I have convinced enough people within that curve.

How do you figure?

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, I am not. I'm waiting for someone else to come to the conclusion you did. Everyone but you seems to have understood my meaning.

Only when you are preaching to the quire. Go and look on the Internet and you will see many claims to the contrary.

 

[Tomtomkent]

More fluffy talk. Show me your contrived interpretation of the quote then. Or is being obscure your choice of defense?

How would my "contrived interpretation" of anything make the slightest bit of difference to if you had or had not supplied sufficient evidence? I have stated I am not convinced by your interpretation, or the evidence you claim to have supplied. What ever interpretation of that single statement I may have, your evidence is insufficient to convince me. Yout TOTALITY of evidence in theis thread is insufficient. You have failed to convince us of any of the points you have made.

You are lacking the ability to shoulder the burden of evidence.

 

[Mojo]

I have provided evidence for the possibility of mind control.

Evidence that mind control is possible is not evidence that you are not under mind control.

If you could provide convincing evidence that mind control is not possible, then that would be evidence that you are not under mind control. Evidence that mind control is possible just makes it more likely that you are in fact under mind control.

There are two possibilities regarding the possibility of mind control and the implications this has as far as you being mind controlled is concerned:

1. Mind control not possible - Anders cannot be under mind control.
2. Mind control possible - Anders can be under mind control.

 

[Anders Lindman]

How do you figure?

Because if you go on the Internet and check people's opinions, you will see that the skeptics on this forum are at one side of the bell curve, not in the center.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Only when you are preaching to the quire. Go and look on the Internet and you will see many claims to the contrary.

Again, who cares what Craig can find on the internet. This is a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. The discussion is being held here. If you can find evidence on the internet, good, post it here and convince us of your points.

Otherwise accept that others do not accept your interpretation and move on.

 

[Anders Lindman]

How would my "contrived interpretation" of anything make the slightest bit of difference to if you had or had not supplied sufficient evidence? I have stated I am not convinced by your interpretation, or the evidence you claim to have supplied. What ever interpretation of that single statement I may have, your evidence is insufficient to convince me. Yout TOTALITY of evidence in theis thread is insufficient. You have failed to convince us of any of the points you have made.

You are lacking the ability to shoulder the burden of evidence.

Evidence for a quote? The quote is sufficiently self-contained unless you can show that it isn't. And if we assume Rockefeller was telling the truth (and that's a rational assumption since what incentive would there have been to for him to lie), then the evidence is in the quote itself.

 

[Craig4]

Because if you go on the Internet and check people's opinions, you will see that the skeptics on this forum are at one side of the bell curve, not in the center.

So um... reality is just something that happens to other people. That list is getting long.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Because if you go on the Internet and check people's opinions, you will see that the skeptics on this forum are at one side of the bell curve, not in the center.

How do you figure? The majority of people will not be on the internet, because their opinion is apathetic, or unconvinced. People who have no interest due to a lack of evidence will not feel the need to make the effort to register their feelings on the internet.

 

[R.A.F.]

I have already pointed out that I'm always one step ahead of y'all.

That you "pointed this out" doesn't make it true, and for all the "steps" you take, you seem to be "tripping" a lot over your own irrationality.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Evidence that mind control is possible is not evidence that you are not under mind control.

If you could provide convincing evidence that mind control is not possible, then that would be evidence that you are not under mind control. Evidence that mind control is possible just makes it more likely that you are in fact under mind control.

There are two possibilities regarding the possibility of mind control and the implications this has as far as you being mind controlled is concerned:

1. Mind control not possible - Anders cannot be under mind control.
2. Mind control possible - Anders can be under mind control.

How would the presence or absence of mind control in my case alter the evidence I present? Evidence for what is discussed in this thread should be able to stand on its own or else it's not much of evidence.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Again, who cares what Craig can find on the internet. This is a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. The discussion is being held here. If you can find evidence on the internet, good, post it here and convince us of your points.

Otherwise accept that others do not accept your interpretation and move on.

Feel free not to accept my interpretation. When I have evidence I may post it, unless it's of the secret art in which case I will not publish it.

 

[R.A.F.]

....accept that others do not accept your interpretation and move on.

Perhaps Anders has "contracted" the Patrick1000 disease...the inability to understand that no one agrees with him.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That you "pointed this out" doesn't make it true, and for all the "steps" you take, you seem to be "tripping" a lot over your own irrationality.

The proof is in the pudding. Try to catch up if you can.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Perhaps Anders has "contracted" the Patrick1000 disease...the inability to understand that no one agrees with him.

No one agrees that for example the Rockefeller quote is an example of him admitting to belong to a secret cabal? Well, go do some searches on the Web.

 

[Anders Lindman]

How do you figure? The majority of people will not be on the internet, because their opinion is apathetic, or unconvinced. People who have no interest due to a lack of evidence will not feel the need to make the effort to register their feelings on the internet.

It's my impression that many members on this forum are on one end of the bell curve, not in the center. Many people on the David Icke forum for example are on the other side of the bell curve. And the public in general is in the middle of the bell curve.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So um... reality is just something that happens to other people. That list is getting long.

I was you who brought up the collective "consensus" on this forum, how important it was. Science is not a democracy.

 

[Mojo]

How would the presence or absence of mind control in my case alter the evidence I present?

The thread is about the alleged existence of a secret "cabal", and about a law suit that is claimed to involve them in some way. If you are under their control then anything you post about them must be considered unreliable, because a secret cabal would not want reliable evidence about them, or their existence, posted on the internet for all to see.

Nothing that you have so far posted about the cabal is inconsistent with your being under their control, by the way.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The thread is about the alleged existence of a secret "cabal", and about a law suit that is claimed to involve them in some way. If you are under their control then anything you post about them must be considered unreliable, because a secret cabal would not want reliable evidence about them, or their existence, posted on the internet for all to see.

Nothing that you have so far posted about the cabal is inconsistent with your being under their control, by the way.

I'm not against any secret cabal, if that's what you mean. And I'm not against the public society either. So in a way I defend both sides. If that's a sign of mind control then I stand guilty.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Feel free not to accept my interpretation. When I have evidence I may post it, unless it's of the secret art in which case I will not publish it.

Then, do you understand that until you do, you are by default WRONG. A claim with out evidence is unfounded, and will convince nobody. All you will achieve is to have people tell you that you are wrong, and ask for evidence.

As you keep making excuses to try and avoid the burden of proof, we can safely assume you don't like to be thought of as wrong. So you may not like how this thread will evolve.