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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.