The Verdict Is?

[mickeycrimm]

The verdict is

GUILTY OF FRAUD

Hardly. No money changed hands, with no thus promises made.

This might be the first post I like from you. Brain dead max the maggot doesn't know the difference between fraud and a ruse. Bwahahahahahahahahhaahahahahha!

[Gottlob1]

I don't know, but regardless of what it is worth, I think you are a dimwit.

And I care how?

You care because you read every single post that is posted on this site, and many times you respond by claiming that you don't care. You're even down in the Documentaries and Movie Section from time to time, lol.

Monet, that's exactly the sort of wife-beater syndrome talk that snags poor KJ, every time. I mean, it's the "superior man", like Zen master V *cough, who doesn't try to (finally) change his underpinnings of, say, inauthenticity (all the way down), but, instead, vigilantly, on each and every occasion, makes the conscious effort not to bullshit. I can hardly respond by not responding. Right?

Get it? Yes, of course, on a fundamental level I have to care to post something, but, that has nothing to do with what I post per se. Analogous to the thus argument that my going away must mean that I went away "mad" about something per se. When, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

How many lawyers does it take to figure out a KJ?

One to turn the bulb, one way, but, the other, to turn it the other way.

Then a judge comes along to try to just push it in, or, pull it out.

[Gottlob1]

The verdict is

GUILTY OF FRAUD

Hardly. No money changed hands, with no thus promises made.

This might be the first post I like from you. Brain dead max the maggot doesn't know the difference between fraud and a ruse.

It's too bad that shows like GWAE never allowed for the true rest of the story, say, with a regular like Blackhole, to counter the gambling baloney. Now that would have been some Goddamn funny radio.

[tableplay]

Yeah, but what is your opinion, either, worth? I don't deal in opinions.

I don't know, but regardless of what it is worth, I think you are a dimwit.

And I care how?

I don't know how - I'm not a mind reader. In any case it doesn't matter to me whether or not you care that I think you are a dimwit.

[Gottlob1]

Then why constantly re-iterate such a claim, in affirmative fashion? Is my mere presence enough for you to thus doubt your own very being? Or, some more-primitive threat, to the resident folie a deux?

Perhaps, a (subconscious) Freudian slip, with the "mind reader" bit. Let's further check it out.

I don't know how - I'm not a mind reader. In any case it doesn't matter to me whether or not you care that I think you are a dimwit.

---> Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Yek Marat Dari Shahid Emir Taher.

https://anagram-solver.net/I%20don%2...0?partial=true


Which, I guess, loosely translates to something like, "Call on me if you think it necessary and I will come personally to Emir Taher."

But, who is ET? How about clumsy French for mon ET, as in my ET, and, then, monET? Ha. More silly "connections" from the other side.

[Rob.Singer]

KJ, you say you won't give proof of the claim.

I agree that nobody here is obligated to provide proof of any claim.

BUT (and it's a big BUT) when you did IN FACT OFFER PROOF by saying the lawsuit had been filed: well, that changes everything.

You made an affirmative representation with the intention of corroborating your story.

As people understandably doubt your claim they did the logical, sensible thing: they checked the relevant court records, looking for the filing you spoke of.

No filing was found.

One question, KJ: WHERE'S THE BEEF?

You opened the damned door, so don't go whining about the bullies finding zero corroboration to your seemingly bogus claim.

You got the attention you crave, but...is it going to be worth the price you will have to pay?

Sometimes you see something well said and worth noting, this is one of those times.

Of course it is. But kew will simply ignore it, slobber MrV with "I consider you to be my online friend" nonsense, and solicit you, mickey, and jbjb as "fellow AP's who understand me" bs.

The fool knows his concocted world is falling apart, which is why he keeps pretending that everybody's got it wrong except him. In the end however, he'll find out just how big and stupid an error he made with this hoax, as he comes crawling back thru his own tears to ask for forgiveness. It'll eventually happen, along with a litany of rationale, excuses and explanations that only a mother could believe. Just as he did after faking his death.

[accountinquestion]

re it, slobber MrV with "I consider you to be my online friend" nonsense, and solicit you, mickey, and jbjb as "fellow AP's who understand me" bs.

The fool knows his concocted world is falling apart, which is why he keeps pretending that everybody's got it wrong except him. In the end however, he'll find out just how big and stupid an error he made with this hoax, as he comes crawling back thru his own tears to ask for forgiveness. It'll eventually happen, along with a litany of rationale, excuses and explanations that only a mother could believe. Just as he did after faking his death.

THe thing with faking your own death - you have to confront that you can no longer use your crafted internet persona. He would have to have given up Kewlj and starting over with the same story? No way.

With faking your death you can weave some background story as to why you had to do it that ties into your counting lifestyle.

With this there is no excuse. He doesn't need to admit it is made-up. He can simply continue denying which apparently is what he is doing but gl with that.

Oh wait ! This just in ! The poll is dead even. lol. Nice troll, whoever.

[MisterV]

Hardly. No money changed hands, with no thus promises made.

So what?

Fraud actually requires neither, it most certainly does not require both.

"Fraud becomes a crime when it is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment”

Hopefully your "Theory of Everything" gets it right, but I won't hold my breath.

[Gottlob1]

Hardly. No money changed hands, with no thus promises made.

So what?

Fraud actually requires neither, it most certainly does not require both.

"Fraud becomes a crime when it is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment”

Hopefully your "Theory of Everything" gets it right, but I won't hold my breath.

Actually, I wouldn't worry about my theory. Especially not now.

As far as the English language is concerned, there are quite a few tricks to pick up from the professional thus forums. One is the use of ngrams, which have to do with frequency of usage, of words and phrases, over the decades, and centuries. Another held in fairly high regard is a site called Wikidiff, which I went to, first.

Fraud is a synonym of trickery.

As nouns the difference between trickery and fraud is that trickery is deception or underhanded behavior while fraud is any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain.

As a verb fraud is to defraud.

https://wikidiff.com/trickery/fraud

Beyond that, it's fairly obvious that what KJ does isn't per se even trickery. Anyone can and may claim to be a blackjack player, and, such claims can inherently carry absolutely zero weight, or accreditation, or other perceived responsibility to the public. Even the back-room nonsense came replete with no pictures, witnesses, or other supporting data, presented as a hoax.

Moreover, as I tried to explain to Monet, some months back, dictionaries aren't meant to be definitive, or consistent, etc, but, mostly as a reflection of the frequency of usage at a given point in history. Otherwise, they would come with built-in theories of everything.

[tableplay]

Then why constantly re-iterate such a claim, in affirmative fashion? Is my mere presence enough for you to thus doubt your own very being? Or, some more-primitive threat, to the resident folie a deux?

Because you keep making comments about my statement declaring that I think you are a dimwit.

[MisterV]

Garnabby, you may be daft but I think your brain works OK and I look forward to reading your "Theory on Everything."

When will it be published for critical review?

Would you call yourself more of a philospher or a scientist?

[Gottlob1]

Then why constantly re-iterate such a claim, in affirmative fashion? Is my mere presence enough for you to thus doubt your own very being? Or, some more-primitive threat, to the resident folie a deux?

Because you keep making comments about my statement declaring that I think you are a dimwit.

But, surely, what I do can't compel you to act in particular ways. That's a level of internet dominance that even I didn't anticipate. Regardless, you and Monet come off more as "turtles all the way down".

"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress. The saying alludes to the mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports a flat Earth on its back. It suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is part of a column of increasingly larger turtles that continues indefinitely.

The exact origin of the phrase is uncertain. In the form "rocks all the way down", the saying appears as early as 1838. References to the saying's mythological antecedents, the World Turtle and its counterpart the World Elephant, were made by a number of authors in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The expression has been used to illustrate problems such as the regress argument in epistemology.

[Gottlob1]

V, I try to play it both ways, but, always, with the scientific foot, first.

Einstein was the last of the famous physicists to be a philosopher, too, as well as both a skilled lab technician, and theorist. As much as Hawking appreciated Einstein's mathematical interpretation of things, extended and simplified it, Hawking publicly pronounced philosophy to be dead. Hawking believed that there could be no theory of everything, hence no God, etc, - based on mathematical proof that there could be no axiomatic basis on which to base every truth, ie, there are things that may be both true, but, wholly not provable. Each was a product of their times, particularly of their limits of physical experimentation.

Einstein believed there was one unique solution to everything with Relativity Theory (opposed to Quantum Theories) at its core, but, now several believe that there are several thus solutions, and, in the form of many different notions of physics, itself, which, of course, means that we could not have any way of knowing the other types of physics.

My belief has, always, more or less, been, eg, that the overall puzzle has to be simultaneously worked from each end.

Simultaneous, say, in the abstract sense that even though matter and antimatter, supposedly, stem from nothingness, and, each is eternal, their creation/annihilation is ongoing, which, coincidentally, is a result of quantum entanglement.

Supposedly, matter is taken as the low-energies, in a field, that are perceivable as the periodic table, chemical elements. Einstein noted that matter doesn't truly exist. Contrary to popular belief, Einstein's gravitational field stuff is about energy, not, mass, which is the reason that the Higgs particle stuff, which gives rise to mass on a quantum level, has nothing to do with the big unknown, quantum gravity. (That negative energy doesn't exist, but, the energy of the gravitational curvature of space-time, in a sense, is the "anti-energy".)

Which leads to the notion that mind, itself, either, doesn't truly exist. Which leads to totally unconventional methods to solve the overall puzzle. Which, accidentally or otherwise, leads to a way that very indirectly involves some relatively very simple math attached to only one method of thus solution. You might call it the "standing on thin-ice approach". What no mathematician, or physicist, will accept without simple, self-evident proof beyond an arbitrarily small reasonable doubt. Try telling one that base ten, with numerals made of the digits from 0, to 9, (along with base fourteen), is the natural or preferred system of numerals. You would be met with howls of laughter. But, it's true.

Oh, speaking of Fibonacci (spiral), there's no reason that time has to wrap around on itself, like space, according to Hawking, or, continue without start, or end. One need only start to put things together in a simplistic sense.

[AxelWolf]

My suggestion to KJ.

If true, it's easily proven. Designate an arbitrator/escrow such as Dan and another party.

Pass on any costs to the naysayers (PUT UP OR SHUT UP!)
It's simple, offer up 2,3,4 -10 to 1, or whatever his BR can handle, or perhaps he can get odds if he can prove a trifecta or whatever (?) that he can prove it. Take the bet once a predetermined total escrowed amount reaches an amount that would cover any liability and make it worthwhile for him to do so.

[monet]

My suggestion to KJ.

If true, it's easily proven. Designate an arbitrator/escrow such as Dan and another party.

Pass on any costs to the naysayers (PUT UP OR SHUT UP!)
It's simple, offer up 2,3,4 -10 to 1, or whatever his BR can handle, or perhaps he can get odds if he can prove a trifecta or whatever (?) that he can prove it. Take the bet once a predetermined total escrowed amount reaches an amount that would cover any liability and make it worthwhile for him to do so.

What the Fuck happened?
I thought you were gonna Shut the Fuck Up and go count cards?
Nope.
You're over here blabbing away again.
Must be drunk.

[soxfan]

My suggestion to KJ.

If true, it's easily proven. Designate an arbitrator/escrow such as Dan and another party.

Pass on any costs to the naysayers (PUT UP OR SHUT UP!)
It's simple, offer up 2,3,4 -10 to 1, or whatever his BR can handle, or perhaps he can get odds if he can prove a trifecta or whatever (?) that he can prove it. Take the bet once a predetermined total escrowed amount reaches an amount that would cover any liability and make it worthwhile for him to do so.

Prediction, the kewl-J will neither put up nor shut up. It ain't in his nature, hey hey.

[soxfan]

Bbbbwwwwwaaaahhhh, I figure by now the garnabby-jones woulda decipher the Voynich Manuscripts by now. I got confidence in the boy, hey hey!!!!

[kewlJ]

Ok, so first, I am NOT trying to discredit Maxpen, who I have always liked. But we all know he is not impeccable as far as telling the truth. He clearly says things about mickeycrimm that aren't true. And mickey returns the favor. I take max pen at his word that he is motivated by finding the truth and not personal, although I have to say calling someone a fraud, as he did, feels very personal to me.

So I spent several hours last night trying to find exactly what MaxPen looked up. On July 3 he posted he had no idea how to look anything up, and 3 days later was the an expert. So the link that he said he used didn't work, but I was able to navigate my way. I knew were to find the case "I was interested in" because I have the case number. And I know that is all you are going to see....a case number. No plaintiff. No defendant. No attorney's involved. That is all under seal.

So again I wanted to see what that would look like for someone searching through a boatload of cases rather than going directly to that case via case #.. I spent two hours last night. Would have taken the better part of a full day to search everything. But in those two hours I found not only the case "I was interested in", but two additional cases that showed ONLY a case number. No further information. So I assume these cases were also sealed. So just extrapolating this out for all the cases that Maxpen looked at he must have come up with 10-12 cases like this? So what did you do with these cases Maxpen, just toss them aside as irrelevant?

Again, I can't and wont talk about much more. I don't think my very general comments above violates that agreement or my own principal (based on advice). Just some food for thought.

[accountinquestion]

Ok, so first, I am NOT trying to discredit Maxpen, who I have always liked. But we all know he is not impeccable as far as telling the truth. He clearly says things about mickeycrimm that aren't true. And mickey returns the favor. I take max pen at his word that he is motivated by finding the truth and not personal, although I have to say calling someone a fraud, as he did, feels very personal to me.

So I spent several hours last night trying to find exactly what MaxPen looked up. On July 3 he posted he had no idea how to look anything up, and 3 days later was the an expert. So the link that he said he used didn't work, but I was able to navigate my way. I knew were to find the case "I was interested in" because I have the case number. And I know that is all you are going to see....a case number. No plaintiff. No defendant. No attorney's involved. That is all under seal.

So again I wanted to see what that would look like for someone searching through a boatload of cases. I spent two hours. Would have taken the better part of a full day to search everything. But in those two hours I found not only the case "I was interested in", but two additional cases that showed ONLY a case number. No further information. So I assume these cases were also sealed. So just extrapolating this out for all the cases that Maxpen looked at he must have come up with 10-12 cases like this? So what did you do with these cases Maxpen, just toss them aside as irrelevant?

Again, I can't and wont talk about much more. I don't think my very general comments above violates that agreement or my own principal (based on advice). Just some food for thought.

Lol what are you waiting for? Claim one of those case numbers as yours! Or are you waiting to see how it plays out? Sharp... er

[kewlJ]

Now Axelwolf is pushing for me to not only put up proof which I can't and won't, but in true Axelwolf fashion, thinks there should be a wager involved.

I CANNOT do what you people are asking. To be honest, if I could I wouldn't based on my own principal that I have held since long before this incident, but that is moot. I CANNOT. On Attorney's advice. Are you people seriously suggesting I should ignore Attorney's advice in favor of internet forum trolling crap? Give me a break.