IN A MODERN WORLD OF
LINGUISTIC CONTROL MECHANISMS
FUNDAMENTALS OF
RESISTING AND DISMANTLING SPIN
Critical analysis at
varying levels of abstraction, a practical guide
( Toc ) to everyday exchanges intended to
widen perception . ( Toc )
A citizens toolbox
for everyday use in DIY dismantling of spin, casuistry,
sophistry, and mindlessness.
A new 12 chapter
book.
PREFACE
Part 1.
A practical guide to
going behind the faces of deception.
Understanding;
and where necessary resisting, everyday forms of persuasion
designed to serve detriments on the individual. Seeing how the
abuse of semantics in naming them benefits; to maintain a feel
good factor, is totally unacceptable form of living an illusion
that serves the interests of power and money.
Examine
the converse / obverse of the consequence, propositionally.
Look
for fallacies of composition numerically, all, some, none, and
absence thereof.
Look
for any reason to use scientific method in necessary and
sufficient conditions.
Compare
purpose and design of total thrust with principles of
cosmological argument.
Make
relevant analogies and see if they are tenable or
look irrational.
Look
for relevant inconsistencies in pursuit of unambiguous
inferences.
Lampoon,
satire, irony, sarcasm, ridicule, metaphor, and such forms.
The index of the book, substantially completed, being
proof read and mounted, expected release in 2-3 months. IN A
MODERN WORLD OF LINGUISTIC CONTROL MECHANISMS
FUNDAMENTALS OF RESISTING
AND DISMANTLING SPIN
Critical analysis at
varying levels of abstraction, a practical guide
( Toc )
to everyday exchanges intended to widen perception . ( Toc
)
A citizens toolbox for everyday. DIY disambiguation
of spin, casuistry, sophistry, and mindlessness.
Abduction................
A syllogism, of which the major premiss
is certain, and the minor only probable, so that the
conclusion has only the probability of the minor; apagoge.
Acausal....................
not causal; not causally related.
Actus
reus................ is the act
which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as
intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime.
Analytic....................
(of a statement etc.) such that
its denial is self-contradictory; true by definition
Apagoge...................
A demonstration which does not prove a thing directly, but
shows the absurdity or impossibility of denying it; a reductio
ad absurdum.
Apodeictic.................
problematic – assertoric. distinction among the
modalities of propositions. A problematic proposition states
what is possible; an assertoric proposition states what is
actual; and an apodeictic proposition states what is
necessary. For example: "A novel could be larger than a
dictionary." is problematic. "Atlanta is larger than
Knoxville." is assertoric. "142 is larger than 37."
is apodeictic. Of clear demonstration; established on
incontrovertible evidence. (By Kant applied to a proposition
enouncing a necessary and hence absolute truth.)
A
posteriori............. (of concepts, knowledge, etc.)
logically dependent on experience; not a maxim.
A
priori.................... (of concepts, knowledge,
etc.) logically independent of experience; not derived from
experience.
Averment.................
The action of positively declaring as
true; assertion, affirmation. OED 3.
4 - An example all too delirious for some, who prefer to look
aslant.
This example case occupies only about 3 percent of the book to
be released here.
This I have seen, and recorded, and will place on the web most
of the 700 pages soon, how errant peccant authority tried this
all on; breached about 17 statutes in the process, and made
outrageous presumptions; based on their omniscience, and the
respondent's 'deemed' ignorance, that were fully rebutted beyond
any reasonable doubt, to a level that is shockingly beyond a
shadow of doubt. I trust the difference is clear? But of course,
the claimant is misguided, The claimant has authorities' own
declarations, self contradictions and false representations on
their own papers, and still perhaps may be excused for genuinely
believing what is KNOWN for certain, and they believe they can
force down the claiamnt's throat in a flurry of cognitive abuses.
Funny, the Judge in that hearing asked the claimant “did
you write all this?”, “Yes”, How does an
ordinary person cope with such a problem?”, “They
don't, they simply go under.”
It's not for your consumption, as you are 'too tired and lack
the energy' to look at the face of truth; while suggesting it's
mendacity, and describing its features in any terms like 'this
stuff', that 'is genuinely believed no doubt.'
So; this is all digression, with apologies for taking the
space, if it's too much I can remove it, and place it on another
site with simply a LINK that will save all that electronic space
that is in such short supply.
It's for the readers who do have the time, inclination, desire
and innocence to look into this errant peccant behaviour. Here is
a small sample take from letterheads of the said authority to do
precisely what the DVLA is pursuing in the course of conduct that
has unambiguous context showing reserve of the use of discretion,
while there is a 'fine' to win in the debate on superiority of
knowledge against ignorance, rather than equity and fairness in
justice; in a sense that may be , marked down as 'obs.' in the
OED soon. Re-lying on the maxim, 'absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence' is among the litany of similar palliations
of errant conduct that tries to cover omissions as simple
negligence while all the while focussed on the revenue, and not
the justice of it.
This is a story based on fact, not 'genuine belief', and there
are 'authority letterheads' to prove it. For those who doubt,
then can send me a PM, and I will provide a link to the short
critical analysis, backed with the 5-6 original letterheads; from
the aforesaid omniscient 'authority', showing the first insight
to 4 of at least 20 self contradictions that got their legal team
all running for the cover of vicarious ir-responsibility. All a
bit too poetic for some, who rely on connotations to have their
effects, and bury the strict denotations in a mist of association
complexes, hoping that one image will misdirect.
Here is the easy read of the first part of bundle one 334
pages, that took the court six weeks to read before issuing the
claim.
ALL PRIMARILY SELF CONTRADICTIONS.
1.Early Summer 2006, authority was notified of a draft claim
prepared showing 4 breaches of statute. After several more
exchanges containing false representations; the authority was
warned clearly and foreseeably they had no understanding of;
a)the function of culpability in anticipation and
expectation, AND
b)had no idea how unambiguous contextual inferencing worked
at all.
With this warning, coupled with a comment that TRUTH comes out
instantly without deliberation, they proceeded to deliberate 27
days before crafting the following reply containing FOUR further
false representations, all within the meaning of; at that time in
draft, the Fraud Act October 2006. They went on to satisfy that
act into January 2007.
2.Letter. Exhibit 1
“We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your
assertion and record that at no stage have we received any
representations from you."
First comment; this ( no stage any ) contradicts the existence
of the letter they are replying to, why are they even writing to
the respondent? You don't even need an exhibit for this
'averment' and false representation.
But if you do need exhibits then here is ONE of FIVE EARLIER
letters among some twenty emails; all being “nothing to do
with representations at any time”.
Exhibit 1 contradicts Exhibit 2 from the SAME author, locum
solicitor, two months earlier, stating they are
“preparing a substantive response” ( to
representations, what else? )
3.Hence Exhibit 1 contradicts Exhibit 3 , from the SAME
borough;
“However despite your stated intention, no formal
representations have been made.”
Next comment; In their omniscience they KNOW what the
respondent did, not what they received and signed for. They were
shown the SIGNED DATED STAMPED RECEIPT / DECEIT on THEIR
LETTERHEAD, describing the reading of a FORMAL appeal in writing
on their own appeal form. ( This respondent was certain for many
years, of what the originator of this thread only suspected; in
misplaced trust, in his circumspection. )
4.Exhibit 1 contradicts Exhibit 4 from the Traffic
enforcement centre,
“an Order for Recovery, which will be issued very
shortly”
Next comment; In their omniscience they KNOW they haven't
registered the debt and each week the respondent was receiving
emails from TEC,
Exhibit 4, saying “Hello the debt had not been
registered”,
with all the potential of a second time around swing at
delinquency in derogation of duty in failure to send APPEALS in
SCHEDULE 6, and STAT DECS in CPR 75.3. Putting all this
negligence at the door of the post services. A later FOI
question was answered that NO appeal or Notice of Rejection was
every sent out. Amused ?
When three days later they 'ACCEPTED' the irrefutable; after
trying desperately to force rebuttable presumption down the
claimant's throat for daring to pay and ask in advance for a
hearing, that the respondent was RIGHT; they then carefully
overlooked the fact of yet another statutory breach that, in
their next letter stating;
1.“It is now accepted that you did in fact deliver
formal representations to Parking Solutions, together with the
signed declaration on the reserve Notice to Owner on 21 July.
Meant the former averments of 'genuine beliefs no doubt' had
to be thrown overboard in the rush for safety;
a ) “We note your assertion that the council is in
breach of the Road Traffic Act 1991 ("the Act") in that
you have been served with a Charge Certificate in relation the
above Penalty Charge Notice without first being served with a
Notice of Rejection of Representations, Statutory Application and
Appeal Form.
b) The Council will of course be defending its position that
it has acted in accordance with the Act.
They had now ADMITTED that THEY HAD BREACHED while threatening
they were preparing to “of course be defending its
position”.
And continued into February 2007 to hold on to enforcement
'that was NOT AT THIS TIME, until they pleaded would the
respondent please give up his action as they had cancelled their
petty PCN, after the respondent had proffered payment in FULL of
£100, way back in May 2006, returning it with accompanying
descriptions of procedure.
They didn't want this respondent to have a fair and public
hearing, under protocol 5 article 6, and denied him MAGNA CARTA
39-40 where 'to NO MAN will we deny or delay JUSTICE' and forget
about three stone weight loss for a person registered with them
as disabled, under the disability Act 2005? That was all part of
the fun in relying on asymmetry of knowledge to extract and
subtract illegally!
Now please lets all be reasonable, this is just a game. PATAS
call it the 'SCHEME' and the DVLA is the same, but somehow they
haven't got rid of the Bill of Rights ......... YET?
All very amusing I guess for the schadenfreud specialists in
winning without proof while being peccant without truth. But this
kind of conduct can KILL people who are disabled.
