Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books
click on the pics.

Logic Law

Dismantling Spin. True Lies and how to Lie Truthfully or Lie Truth_un_fully.

This pages is currently being added to please revisit.

Telling lies while telling only the truth is a TWO stage procedure, dead easy!

This is a quick draft, I will return to complete a thorough traversal to tighten each area of ambiguity.

  1. Economy of truth in a typical section 9 type statement, disregarding the old format.

  2. Backing it up with an irrelevant witness statement.

    Oh what a falling off was there, when they changed the format, they knew what they were doing....

Dismantling it, a two or three stage process, ALSO dead easy!

Wrap the whole lot in a template procedure of replies like “Having considered everything you have to say, I am sorry to reject it, you whatever.... “. And you have a forged process cloaked in a ring fenced set of letters, veiled in a procedure that's a corridor to the abattoir and all wrapped in the countenance of authority run by people who are told, don't think do as I tell you and write from template 6, 51 and 3, that should fix him).

Even easier IF the adversary in 1 above was not clinical in truth..... inconsistent, building a picture that frames you.

If a person or group of people even embarked on the strategy in red above, then the probability of finding it out with pure logic is almost as high as 1, ie; near certainty, because logic and its three laws of thought ......

ARE certainties like nothing else you have ever considered.

  1. State you have “Noted the contents” of 1. & 2. red above.

  2. Complete what's left out in 1. red above

  3. Look for inconsistencies in 1, 2, red above, and your own rebuttal in 2 blue above

  4. place the proposition side by side in logic and truth tables and see clearly what happened to you.....

  5. Place all that within a frame, like “The health and safety Act” and the lockout is complete.

    I'll take you through the steps with a bit of poetry all thrown in...

  1. I swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the new style...

  2. I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

A Section nine statement sworn for TRUTH

This statement (consisting of 2 pages each signed by me)

( Actually this one was not signed & not witnessed, think about it????? )

is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Later at the PCA COMPLAINT STAGE, go to the blue bit, they admitted two things that cannot be true together, a contradiction, ( actually a slightly impure contradiction, a contrariety, that I will not complicate you with at this stage), but now look at its truth table...again and see that ALL the truth possibilities for a contradiction, show EVERY possibility confirms the truth of the formula.

ie; ~( P & ~P ) “ It is not possible for ( P and NOT P ) to be true together.

This form is known as a tautology, see the logic page link above, and is “a priori” that is to say innate to thought and does NOT rely on corroboration in the empirical world of correspondence theory.

Hence it is true in any world, all worlds, any space any time. It's worse than a law of nature that requires a frame of reference to hold in. “A priori” thinking does not require a frame, it only requires the presence of cerebration.

An irrelevant witness statement looks like this with reference to the sworn section nine statement above.

This statement consisting of 1 page signed by me is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

I Mrs ABC solemnly do take oath and swear that I witness the person named DEFG sign the statement headed “such and such a statement” and that the supporting documents came from the Head Office computer marked ABC, located at such and such address, and time date stamped such and such. I confirm that I have the only pasword for the machine and it has not been interfered with on the day in question and the printed statement paper came out from the prinetr marked GHI that was attached to the aforesaid computer.

Nice isn't it, then rubber stamp it, place some nice emblems at the bottom, like Members of the federation of amalgamated silversmiths, affiliated with the chartered surveyors and with the ISO 9000 stamp of quality.

All giving it what's called credent bulk, that stamp of an appeal to authority, and very very persuasive, which unless those authorities have a history of impeccable integrity and adherence to truth outside frameworks, is a fallacy.

Jump to next section.

'Truth the Whole truth and Nothing but..', is best,

While 'Truth and Nothing but..', leaves out the rest.

Stealthy lawyers; by close selection sets,

Present persuasive cases like cadets,

Whose exclusions like 'suppressio veri's',

To th'unwary, make 'suggestio falsi's'

When 'full disclosure'; lawful, be withheld,

Unjust sentences make, nought there expelled.

Difficult indeed to form conclusions,

Whose truth relies on 'Whole truth' bastions.

Last resort those logical conjectures,

Which explain these; 'must have been', abductures.

Thus stealth perceived, by grievèd stealth combat,

Logic's laws clean all space' and time's caveat.

Law - By Questor ©

Ghost. Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast,

With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts-

O wicked wit and gifts, that have the power

So to seduce!- won to his shameful lust

The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen.

O Hamlet, what a falling-off was there,

From me, whose love was of that dignity

That it went hand in hand even with the vow

I made to her in marriage, and to decline

Upon a wretch whose natural gifts were poor

To those of mine!

But virtue, as it never will be mov'd,

Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,

So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd,

Will sate itself in a celestial bed

And prey on garbage.

But soft! methinks I scent the morning air.

Brief let me be. Sleeping within my orchard,

My custom always of the afternoon,

Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole,

With juice of cursed hebona in a vial,

And in the porches of my ears did pour

The leperous distilment; whose effect

Holds such an enmity with blood of man

That swift as quicksilverr it courses through

The natural gates and alleys of the body,

And with a sudden vigour it doth posset

And curd, like eager droppings into milk,

The thin and wholesome blood. So did it mine;

And a most instant tetter bark'd about,

Most lazar-like, with vile and loathsome crust

All my smooth body.

Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother's hand

Of life, of crown, of queen, at once dispatch'd;

Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,

Unhous'led, disappointed, unanel'd,

No reckoning made, but sent to my account

With all my imperfections on my head.

So by the art of 'suppression veri 'and 'suggestion falsi', the presentation from an untruthful adversary is going to be that SOME, probably vital, evidence is NOT forthcoming, you can compel this under CPR rule 31.6

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed
31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only
.........(a) the documents on which he relies; and
.........(b) the documents which
.........(i) adversely affect his own case;
.........(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or
.........(iii) support another party’s case; and
.........(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

(Rule 31.10 makes provision for a disclosure statement)
(Rule 31.12 provides for a party to apply for an order for specific inspection of documents)

Most likely you KNOW what (b), (i) are because you simply know the whole truth........

It needs to be proved, that's the problem.

It's also very likely that by the scientific methodology or else contextual inferencing you can prove a conclusion by means of an unambiguous and unequivocal inference that flows from context. I shall prepare more on this later.

Scientific Methodology.

What is perhaps important, is that with respect to thinking; to rely on certainties derived from empirical sources, will be as fallible as scientific methodology and probability theory.

The axiom of causes is based in principle of the ' absence and presence of sufficient and necessary conditions.' If there is a simple cause, (rare), and the necessary and sufficient conditions are satisfied, then it is most likely that that simple cause is THE condition in a nomic relationship, ie; a binding relationship of logic or causality.

So that 'if life has a single and simple cause then', 'if the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, then it is sufficient for the absence of oxygen to remove life'

Where the causal or nomic relationship is more complex, there has to be a process of elimination, and that is how many scientific hypotheses are established to be of the order of very high probability, but never quite certain as a tautology or law of thought.

Take for example a binding relationship with many possible causes.

Your computer crashes, and on rebooting you runs several tests in the processes of elimination. This is a standard procedure employed by any computer troubleshooter.

  1. Listen to determine if the hardware is making an unusual notice, ie; the hard drive spindle is clicking. Answer NO?

  2. Run a surface check in basic safe mode, AH can't do that, windows won't even load. Then you need a bookable floppy or cdrom disk. You ought to have had one in just such a case.

  3. If you have one, then go to dos, the old substrate operating system and either run the program SCANDISK C: /F to scan drive C and fix any errors. Or else run CHKDSK. No luck still not working, then do you have a two drive system?

  4. If so, reboot the system and interrupt the boot process in CMOS by Ctrl Alt Del or whatever is relevant for your bios. Swith the boot to the second drive by making it the bookable drive, assuming it was bookable. NO luck!

  5. Now you need a screwdriver, open th case, remove the hard drive, and try another.. Assuming you ahd a spare, perhaps in a second machine.

  6. Boot on the floppy or cdrom, and see if you can scan the surface of that driven. IF YES then that is the most likely cause. If you can switch the jumpers and make your bad drive a slave, and then attach and scan it, then if it can be scanned, it may well be a virus, and then you go down the path of virus software checks. Eventually you will find the ONE condition whose malfunction was the cause for the system malfunction. This was not intended as a lesson for repairing a PC, but to show the methodology works for any number of possible causes. The cause may have been both virus AND faulty hard drive.....

  7. But now it's a disaster for you if you didn't have a backup. You may be able to salvage the hard disk if a virus checker couldn't find the virus. When you have restored the primary drive, you can put that drive back in as a slave drive, download a low level format program from the manufacturer say Western Digital, and, do a low level format on the drive, then a high level FDISK, and format under DOS, and all works then you know it had to either be a virus OR a complete loss of the FAT table of partition structures. Cause most probably there.

  8. Car veering to the left a bit, stop it and examine the left front tyre, if it's low that's probably the cause, nest station check pressures and even them up both side. It's very easy.........more to come.....

  9. Fire, requires oxygen to survive, throw a wet towel over the fire area and watch it die, oxygen was the simple cause in this case.