* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Clare Needs To Face-Up To Her Fraud/Hoaxing
(Apollonian, 17 Sep 14)
Clare: "proof" properly means a sign existing in the OBJECTIVE world and then present itself to one's SENSE-PERCEPTION. The mind only sets the perceptions to look in proper direction, that's all. The mind then merely acknowledges the evidence of one's perception.
So tell us what are those signs existing in objective world which serve as evidence so that we mortals can look and see for ourselves--u got nothing.
U seem to pt. to this or that sign which isn't conclusive or even relevant, then use another, and pretend to putting them together to say, "ahhh, I've solved it," ho ho ho
U're just a con-artist who's conned urself, that's all, and u berate the rest of us who don't go along w. ur self-deception. It's not our fault, and we've done all that's necessary for any honest searching.
Note Clare: at a certain pt. u become outright fraud and hoaxster--this is ur problem, not ours.
If there's proof of OBJECTIVE nature, say what it is, or they are--list them if there's more than one sign--LEAVE OFF w. the prefaces, marginal notes, and "explanations." Quit shilly-shallying. We're starting to beginning to losing patience w. u.
So tell us what are those signs existing in objective world which serve as evidence so that we mortals can look and see for ourselves--u got nothing.
U seem to pt. to this or that sign which isn't conclusive or even relevant, then use another, and pretend to putting them together to say, "ahhh, I've solved it," ho ho ho
U're just a con-artist who's conned urself, that's all, and u berate the rest of us who don't go along w. ur self-deception. It's not our fault, and we've done all that's necessary for any honest searching.
Note Clare: at a certain pt. u become outright fraud and hoaxster--this is ur problem, not ours.
If there's proof of OBJECTIVE nature, say what it is, or they are--list them if there's more than one sign--LEAVE OFF w. the prefaces, marginal notes, and "explanations." Quit shilly-shallying. We're starting to beginning to losing patience w. u.
--------------------------------------Clare replies below-----------------------------------
Apsterian: you don't understand evidence or proof any more than people who resist 9/11 Truth; to people such as you, your understanding of how argument works varies according to the positions you like at first hearing, not with work.
There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.
Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).
You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.
There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.
Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).
You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.
-------------------------------------ap replied, below-copied--------------------------------------
In The End, Clare Merely Fools Herself Most
(Apollonian, 17 Sep 14)
I get it, Clare: u're a fraud, a phony, and a con-artist--who, further, doesn't seem to understand evidence, what knowledge is, logic, etc.--or maybe u do, but then u're good at lying about what it "really" is, or "could be," ho ho ho--in order to persuade folks there's something wrong w. them who don't agree w. ur foolery, which u think is so engaging and entertaining--u gotta realize it gets old.
What I don't get--because there's nothing there--is any evidence for PID.
U also get somewhat mixed-up w. ur nonsense too, like ur above first sentence/paragraph which rather fails for full coherence.
If u believe ur own lies, that's what's going to hurt u most, in the end, I submit.
Ur technique is simply: (a) repeat ur assertion which u don't substantiate. (b) Attack others who fail to agree w. ur balderdash which includes nonsense and mock-"philosophy" about logic, evidence, etc., like ur above moronic, "meaning-making," ho ho ho ho ho. (c) Maintain ur certainty, continuing to repeat.
Danger is the little lies u tell, like above, "your understanding of how argument works varies"--which doesn't make sense--I understand or not, period. It's UR understanding that's most questionable.
See Clare: if u're a con-artist, which u are, u can't afford to submit urself to too much scrutiny, like here on Fetzer's comments section. Fans of Fetzer tend to be serious students of logic, etc., and that's dangerous for phonies like u who take ur comedy routine too seriously, thinking u can just go on w. ur foolery--it gets old--doesn't it for u too?
What I don't get--because there's nothing there--is any evidence for PID.
U also get somewhat mixed-up w. ur nonsense too, like ur above first sentence/paragraph which rather fails for full coherence.
If u believe ur own lies, that's what's going to hurt u most, in the end, I submit.
Ur technique is simply: (a) repeat ur assertion which u don't substantiate. (b) Attack others who fail to agree w. ur balderdash which includes nonsense and mock-"philosophy" about logic, evidence, etc., like ur above moronic, "meaning-making," ho ho ho ho ho. (c) Maintain ur certainty, continuing to repeat.
Danger is the little lies u tell, like above, "your understanding of how argument works varies"--which doesn't make sense--I understand or not, period. It's UR understanding that's most questionable.
See Clare: if u're a con-artist, which u are, u can't afford to submit urself to too much scrutiny, like here on Fetzer's comments section. Fans of Fetzer tend to be serious students of logic, etc., and that's dangerous for phonies like u who take ur comedy routine too seriously, thinking u can just go on w. ur foolery--it gets old--doesn't it for u too?
--------------------------------------Clare replies, below-----------------------------
You are simply wrong, Apsterian, in your approach and your knowledge base, but you mean well, or you would not be listening to Jim's shows. Just ignore this case.
"U also get somewhat mixed-up w. ur nonsense too, like ur above first sentence/paragraph which rather fails for full coherence."
What sentence? Remember, I am not doing majorly edited posts here.
What sentence? Remember, I am not doing majorly edited posts here.
---------------------------------ap replies below-copied---------------------------------------------
Clare Cannot Resist Committing Fraud--Mostly Against Herself
(Apollonian, 17 Sep 14)
"You are simply wrong, Apsterian, in your approach and your knowledge base,...." --Clare Kuehn September 17, 2014 at 5:43 PM
See Clare: that's all u can ever do, when u get down to it--assert without substantiating--known as fallacy of question-begging.
Remember: people can easily see my "approach" as I make it crystal, explicitly, clear as to what and how evidence is and proper treatment for it--which u NEVER do--and they see urs too, u consistently, repeatedly asserting, NEVER substantiating, over and over and over, aside fm ur other absurdities.
U spice things up w. ur insufferable patronizing, like, "but you mean well, or you would not be listening to Jim's shows." Ho ho ho ho--and u think u're clever or that u're fooling anyone but urself.
And it's all done for ur own consumption, entertainment, to fool urself, imagining u're being persuasive, etc.
"[M]ajorly edited posts..."?--why not just say, "heavily edited," or "carefully edited," or just "edited"? Ho ho ho--see, u just start falling all over urself for ur attempted deceptions which requires excessive elaborations and strained phraseology. Ho ho ho oh
"Ignore this case"?--absolutely not, as it's excellent example of a con-artist (you) getting carried away w. one's own conning of oneself, thinking u accomplish anything.
And that's great thing about blogs and comments sections where we Fetzer fans can examine someone like u thoroughly--observe it's now over 200 for the comments--u've revealed urself too much, do u think?--that's probably because u take urself--and ur absurd "philosophy," such as it is, on "evidence," etc.--too seriously and don't mind going on and on with it, imagining u make any sense. Ho ho ho ho
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------------------------------at this pt. Clare realizes she should stop responding as she's effectively exposed, and further responses only expose her further, ho ho ho ho---------------------------
ReplyDeleteapsterianSeptember 16, 2014 at 3:28 PM
Ian GreenhalghSeptember 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM
Your PID theory is so far from proven that you really shouldn't go around claiming he is dead.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Clare KuehnSeptember 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM
Ian, it is remarkably well proven.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Onus/burden is obviously upon Clare.
And now here is what Clare must/should do: simply list the evidence--JUST THE EVIDENCE, NOT NOT NOT Clare's usual/typical "explanations" and "prefaces"--JUST THE SIMPLE FACT(S), that's all.
Notice above statement fm Clare--all she does is DECLARE and assert, "it's remarkably well proven"--should just be, "it's proven, here's the facts," Clare thus listing the facts/items. But Clare CANNOT do this simple thing.
And the list of facts ought not take too many words.
Don't try to coach us as to how to arrange, prepare or configure our minds, Clare--just state the bare fact(s). Leave-off the explanations, excuses, or conditionalities--just state the plain, gosh-darn facts.
U cannot and WILL NOT do this Clare (stating bare facts)--Further, u want to BLAME US for demanding u leave off w. the conditioning of mentality for the "real" truth. Clare wants to ACCUSE us of being "prejudiced" because we want her to leave-off w. the prefacing and "explanations."
Clare KuehnSeptember 17, 2014 at 4:49 PM
No, I present how to know and all the forms of evidence, where they fit, plus the physical evidence. I have talked the bare facts, the connections which reason between them (as all cases do, Apsterian), and give people the additional help of reminding them what mind set allows for absorbing a case -- whatever one decides afterward. You simply resist.
So, to repeat:
Apsterian: you don't understand evidence or proof any more than people who resist 9/11 Truth; to people such as you, your understanding of how argument works varies according to the positions you like at first hearing, not with work.
There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.
Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).
You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.
Clare KuehnSeptember 17, 2014 at 4:50 PM
This broadcast was not a laundry list of facts -- which people like to ad hoc dismiss anyway, so they need reminders to think things through.
This broadcast was more epistemological. You simply don't bother.
-----------------------------------
apsterianSeptember 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM
ReplyDeleteWTF?--"proof" is a sign fm the sensory world demonstrating a proposition in a conclusive manner.
So WHAT is a "proof" "abstractly"?--ho ho ho ho--u need to explain what u're talking about here.
Note proper perception shouldn't require too much contriving--one simply submits the senses to reception of the evidence or signs, the mind then simply acknowledges it.
Clare, u're the one who needs to pull ur head out and quit babbling. An "argument" presents premises for a conclusion--so tell me where I'm wrong, ho ho ho ho ho
Clare KuehnSeptember 17, 2014 at 4:47 PM
To repeat (I just posted this below), since I will not argue the evidence here in words. I have done the work for people & present it in other shows, in the forum comments there & on the blog:
Apsterian: you don't understand evidence or proof any more than people who resist 9/11 Truth; to people such as you, your understanding of how argument works varies according to the positions you like at first hearing, not with work.
There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.
Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).
You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.
apsterianSeptember 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM
ReplyDeleteClare Risks Her Immortal Soul For Illusory Proposition
Clare, just because u're charming, witty, articulate, and u know lots of trivia about lots of stuff, been on lots of radio shows, etc., and just because good Prof. Fetzer likes u and thinks u're great radio-guest, doesn't prove Paul kicked the proverbial bucket, and u still show no evidence, despite all ur blandishments and instructions on how to arrange our emotions, etc.
We Christians, for example, worship TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (Christ--Gosp. JOHN 14:6) because it's ONLY way to Godly happiness, so u see I make it a pt. to observe all facts and rational signs and evidence. At least GMB attempted to try to pt. to some simple kind of evidence, like the vid he cited--U?--u got nuthin'--aside, of course, fm ur comedy routine, which is quite good, to be sure, and worth a listen (though maybe not for a solid 2 hrs), but as for actual evidence--zilch, nada, zero.
Over 160 responses now for this blog, and what do u have?--weasel arguments, special pleading, and intense mystic conviction--but all too little actual facts and evidence
U've got urself conned, Clare, but not many others, I note, and further, observe u don't have too many defenders either as (a) they're all Paul & Beatle fans, and their adulatory nonsense has now been roundly dismissed; (b) they also know they'll be assailed for down-to-earth, actual evidence which they know they have too little, if any at all.
U're on ur last legs now, psychologizing and patronizing the crowd to try winning them over emotionally--but that's precisely the WRONG way to going about things, Clare--u're getting into bad habits trying now to be like a court-room attorney arguing a losing case and resorting to psy-ops and things other than hard evidence. Shame shame shame--u'll end spending lots of time in purgatory for ur tricks, I'm warning u.
Clare KuehnSeptember 17, 2014 at 4:53 PM
No, Apsterian. You were conned. You need to put in effort; the laundry list of facts amassed as evidence is there in the material I talk of, in many places; the laundry list is unhelpful (just as in most court cases, which have to argue why those items are acceptable, what place they may hold in each side of the issue, etc.).
You don't need to warn me. Paul is dead - though I hope not in purgatory.
Clare KuehnSeptember 17, 2014 at 4:54 PM
What you call "weasel arguments", Apsterian, are simply context & meta-understanding. The basic elements are given mostly elsewhere.
I am not going to rewrite my blog here.