The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1451

Post by BillTheCat » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:54 pm

Slarti :-bd
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1452

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:58 pm

Slarti :-bdI just wish that I had thought of it when the abomination was whining about the title of the thread... #-o
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1453

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:14 am

After another excellent analysis by Verbie and since the abomination once again says he is leaving us (although maybe not for realsies), I thought I would revisit my extension of his sporting analogy (to the abomination: my analogy is about BASKETBALL not baseball---you should make a note of that so that it is less obvious that you didn't read anything I wrote when you respond).





Let's take a closer look at Verbie's sports analogy. While what he describes covers most of the people, I think there are three groups he didn't mention which will add to our insight into the birthers---the hardcore fans of each team and the non-partisans. We all know that both team A and team B have some hyper-partisans as well as people who believe their team is in the right regardless of the evidence. If we think of partisanship and objectivity as being measured on two separate axes, we can make one of the type of charts that Nate Silver loves so (as well as Randall Monroe and myself). Imagine every person having a partisanship rating between -1 (Team A superfan) and 1 (Team B superfan) and an objectivity rating between 0 (my team is right no matter what) and 1 (the evidence speaks for itself). Roughly speaking, the initial impression of someone with a high partisanship rating (in either direction) is going to be biased towards their team and someone with a high objectivity is going to gravitate towards the the side the evidence supports. In this context, we can also consider someone's confidence---what they believe to be the probability that the call was right---and how it evolves over time. Since most people are better with a specific example rather than the abstract and Mr. Nash has extreme difficulty with analogies, let's use a sporting example:





The 1992 NCAA East Regional Final between Duke and Kentucky is widely considered to be the best college basketball game ever. There were, if I recall correctly, five lead changes in the last 34 seconds or so concluding with Grant Hill passing to Christian Laettner for what is known to Duke fans as "The Shot" with 2.1 seconds left. There are many aspects of this game that are interesting in this context (was it the greatest game?, the "Unforgettables", the last game of Kentucky's long-time radio announcer), but I'd like to focus on one particular call that could well have changed the outcome. Late in the second half, in a crowd of people underneath the basket Christian Laettner stepped on a Kentucky player after the play was whistled dead. He was charged with a technical foul, but not ejected from the game. He went on to finish with 31 points (including the aforementioned game winner) on perfect shooting from the field and from the line along with 4 personal fouls (at the time, technical fouls did not count as personal fouls).





As a strong Duke partisan, my initial reaction (after seeing the play live) was to be fairly certain that it was no big deal and didn't deserve a technical at all. However, being also objective, when I saw in the replay that Christian did step on him and it was a dead ball, I admitted that it was, in fact, a technical foul and was confident that the ref had indeed made the right call (and was very glad it was not a personal foul). After the game was over and I saw the replay in slow motion several times, it became clear that there was a hesitation that made it very hard not to see it as a deliberate stomp rather than an accidental step. In retrospect (had the officials had replay and the rules allowed using it---as they do now), Christian probably should have been ejected from the game (but, as Verbie said, I'm very glad he wasn't).





A subjective Duke partisan would have seen the play as no big deal from the start and never changed their mind, while any Kentucky partisans (objective or subjective) would have thought that an ejection was in order from the start and only have become more certain after seeing more evidence. A non-partisan would have initially thought that the call was correct (most of the time the refs get it right) and, if they were objective, would have likely come to think he should have been ejected.So, what can we learn about the abomination and his ilk from this? First off, no matter how neutral or objective you are, there's no way to be sure that your first impression is the correct one. Once additional evidence starts coming in, however, some patterns become clear. While not conclusive by any measure, people joining your group is good. In our example, both the people who thought the refs made the right call and the people who thought Christian should have been ejected would see people who's initial reaction was different come to share their opinion. On the other hand, people leaving your group is very bad. While this could be due to factors not accounted for in this simple model, such as bad information or bad interpretation of information, it could also be the result of people who are more objective than you reacting to new evidence. At the very least, this should be a red flag to any honest person that they need to be more objective (this is rarely a bad idea). Similarly, from a personal point of view, if you are changing your mind that doesn't necessarily mean that you are right, but it's a good sign. It means you are objective enough to react to evidence---so long as that evidence is good and your analysis isn't compromised by your bias, your reactions will move you in the right direction. Again, if the opposite is true, then this should be a red flag suggesting more objectivity. If you are a Duke fan who is as certain it should have been a no-call after watching all of the replays as you were when you saw it at full speed, everything is telling you that you are wrong.





So what does this tell us about the birthers? Their opinions about anything relating to President Obama never change after the moment they receive them from the FOX Propaganda Channel or some other right-wing outlet (none of which tolerate any kind of diversity of opinion whatsoever). Furthermore, there are plenty of people that are anti-Obama and still anti-birther, indicating that they almost certainly had to change their mind based on something, while no one who started out anti-birther has been convinced that the birthers are correct, indicating that there isn't ANY evidence credible and persuasive enough to change the mind of an objective person who isn't already prejudiced against President Obama.





If we think about plotting where people lie in the plane defined by their partisanship and objectivity, we get a figure like the one below where we can see that the only people that are extremely biased against President Obama and have a serious lack of objectivity (or critical thinking skills) become and remain birthers once they are exposed to this issue.








Attached files NAIDU--PromissoryNote_LawSchool.doc (12 KB)  Agenda 21 - Chapter 36 Earth Summit, 1992.htm (53.1 KB)  20091289612avfsupp2d677_11242.htm (78 KB) 
lloyd call.mp3 (298.2 KB)  Randall.mp3 (629.1 KB)  Peter from Colorado_NLA call_10132014.mp3 (685.8 KB)  937_1245284934.mp3 (61.3 KB)  FOGBOW--Doxology.mp3 (780.8 KB)  Crickets.mp4 (280.3 KB)  Reconsideration.pdf (345 KB)  Burney_unreg vehicle.pdf (65.9 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.6.0.pdf (43.4 KB)  gov.uscourts.dcd.161854.161.0.pdf (217.8 KB)  Phillips_Reagan_Sovrun_order.pdf (993.4 KB)  2014-011-Use of Court Facilities.pdf (102.1 KB)  NAIDU--UPDATEDJULY2015--CoLB_MoU.pdf (74.7 KB)  High School Diplomas.pdf (283 KB)  2_mandamus_to_sheriff_0.compressed.pdf (494.4 KB)  Burney_court summary.pdf (58.1 KB)  2014-11-16_15-49-37.pdf (162.3 KB)  Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El v. Dir._ Dep_t of Corr._ 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25603.PDF (169.7 KB)  US v Dean doc 7 Statement of defendant in advance of plea.pdf (293.9 KB)  180 HovindHansen2014 05112015.pdf (77.3 KB)  184 HovindHansen2014 05122015.pdf (318 KB)  NLA--SwearYoureNotANarcVow.pdf (63.2 KB)  Orange County CA CPS lawsuit.pdf (229.9 KB)  write_quo_warranto.pdf (372.6 KB)  Taitz v Johnson response to motion to transfer.pdf (37.6 KB)  First District Court of Appeal Case Docket.pdf (164.9 KB)  utd-75-0erged.pdf (683.3 KB)  vidurek v krajick.pdf (1.2 MB)  David Salo cases.pdf (69.1 KB)  Redemption-Manual.pdf
(2.2 MB)  game.pdf (94.4 KB)  scgjbp-01-1003.compressed.pdf (1.1 MB)  191 HovindHansen2015 0515205.pdf (138 KB)  Complete Hovind Hansen Docket 05122015.pdf (563.4 KB)  Caporale_DUI.pdf (65.5 KB)  20141204_c309161_113_309161.opn.pdf (36.4 KB)  vidurek v krajick doc 2.pdf (308.8 KB)  David Brian Salo traffic_criminal cases.pdf (69.8 KB)  Hovind Govt on JOA Motion 03222015-2.pdf (62.5 KB)  gov.uscourts.dcd.161854.188.pdf (300.2 KB)  LG WT6001HVA Washer Spec Sheet.pdf (1.7 MB)  Anthony_Renfrow_Plea_Agreement.pdf (1.7 MB)  Chris-Roberts-Application-for-Search-Warrant.pdf (818.8 KB)  170 HovindHansen2014 05042015.pdf (128.9 KB)  Caporale_Common Pleas_DUI.pdf (72.2 KB)  BILLS-111hres593eh.pdf (123.4 KB)  20141204_c309161_114_309161d.opn.pdf (9.9 KB)  D.D.C._1-13-cr-00253_154.pdf (124.9 KB)  6760.pdf (4.5 KB)  fy16budget.pdf (1.6 MB)  klayman v city pages doc 74.pdf (48.5 KB)  gov.uscourts.gand.217117.22.0.pdf (215.9 KB)  Biological_Modeling_Service_Development_Plan_6_17_13.pdf (94 KB)  botc_Alleged_Massacre.pdf (2 MB)  4_9_10-rod-class-coast-guard-filing.doc.pdf (533.5 KB)  Class170.pdf (109.7 KB)  224521 Study of Parole Violations in California(1).pdf (1.1 MB)  171 HovindHansen2014 05042015.pdf (151.9 KB)  The Difference Between an American and a Patriot.pdf (31.4 KB)  Nationality_Examined.pdf (215.9 KB)  14-08-04 letter filed to Judge Munkittick.pdf (329.3 KB)  Case Search.pdf (139.1 KB)  CLGJ 1901 Manatee County.pdf (68.7 KB)  8-main.pdf (82.3 KB)  Klayman v city pages DktRpt.pdf (88.8 KB)  Hovind Hansen ORDER 02242015.pdf (124.9 KB)  sterling_lawsuit_exhibit_14_5.pdf (58 KB)  212 HovindHansen2014 06252015.pdf (36.4 KB)  Duty of the Sheriff.pdf (119.6 KB)  Class169.pdf (557.8 KB)  Class167.pdf (30.9 KB)  224521 Study of Parole Violations in California.pdf (1.1 MB)  gov.uscourts.utd.95976.32.0.pdf (35.3 KB)  phv-order.pdf (539 KB)  172 HovindHansen2014 05052015.pdf (104.7 KB)  B.R._v._Orange_Complaint.pdf (242.8 KB)  Siegmeister_Case_Summary_0814141.pdf (120.6 KB)  campion.pdf (539.3 KB)  AsystBio_Specific Aims.pdf (60.6 KB)  8-1.pdf (28.2 KB)  Klayman v city pages doc 65.pdf (44.6 KB)  Hovind Hansen Jury Instruction 02242015.pdf (44.4 KB)  211 HovindHansen2014 06252015.pdf (319.7 KB)  180 HovindHansen2014 05112015.pdf (77.3 KB)  Wtit of error1.pdf (547.7 KB)  179121515658.pdf (177.8 KB)  Taitz v Koskinen.pdf (1.5 MB)  Klayman v city pages doc 62.pdf (58.3 KB)  Hovind Hansen Govt Voir Dire 02242015.pdf (29.6 KB)  The Truth Jan 2015.pdf (370.3 KB)  Visner v Isabella county.pdf (45.1 KB)  Kent Hovind 2006 Trial Sentencing Transcript.pdf (1.1 MB)  OBJECTION&MOTIONTODISMISS.pdf (80.5 KB)  REQUESTTOPRESENTSUIJURIS.pdf (35.7 KB)  Charter board agenda.pdf (15.4 KB)  Mongomery v risen 52.pdf (202.9 KB)  gov.uscourts.utd.95764.3.0.pdf (309.7 KB)  U.S. v. RENFROW _ Leagle.pdf (621.2 KB)  COMMON LAW IS STILL LAW.pdf (58.2 KB)  Taitz v Koskinen docket.pdf (165.5 KB)  NLA--CarlasGoingToJail.pdf (93.7 KB)  ECF 118.pdf (36.8 KB)  Lawrence Order.pdf (40.9 KB)  David Salo felony case.pdf (125 KB)  Petition to Transfer.pdf (82.2 KB)  948-main.pdf (165.9 KB)  Hovind Hansen Verdict Form 02242015.pdf (29.9 KB)  Hansen Stipulation.pdf (432.2 KB)  Sentencing Transcripts.pdf (381.7 KB)  SEC Rulling has allowed Common Law.pdf (99 KB)  OBJECTION-RIGHTTOCOUNSEL.pdf (53.1 KB)  ECF 14.pdf (136.1 KB)  gov.uscourts.dcd.160449.99.0.pdf (66 KB)  gov.uscourts.utd.95764.5.1.pdf (26 KB)  U.S. v. Mersky.pdf (46.2 KB)  USA v Renfrow.pdf (264.8 KB)  Letter from Judy to 10th circuit.pdf (70.8 KB)  No legal authority
.pdf (152.4 KB)  ECF 116.pdf (104.2 KB)  S.D.Fla._1-13-cv-20610_145.pdf (783.6 KB)  Taitz v Koskinen.pdf (1.3 MB)  948-1.pdf (101.6 KB)  The Ill Intention of Common Core.pdf (273.6 KB)  JoelGilbertFECComplaint(1).pdf (204 KB)  Hansen Motion 02182015.pdf (271.9 KB)  montgomery v risen doc 79-1 proposed protection order.pdf (93.1 KB)  DEMANDFORBILLOFPARTICULARS.pdf (48.9 KB)  Pellerin et al v. Wagner et al.pdf (233.8 KB)  12-57302.PDF (198.6 KB)  gov.uscourts.utd.95764.5.0.pdf (284.9 KB)  Klayman v Clinton et al docket_04282015.pdf (194.6 KB)  Court of record example.pdf (198.4 KB)  FBI-SovereignCitizenCourts.pdf (210.2 KB)  948-2.pdf (82.8 KB)  burg v douglas 1-2.pdf (149 KB)  DEMANDFORHANKINSONDOCUMENTS-1.pdf (31.7 KB)  13-The Art-VI-Clause-2_Contempt Of Constitution TEST.pdf (305.8 KB)  Google Inc. v Hood docket_04282015.pdf (461.9 KB)  Prima facie case.pdf (55.9 KB)  lawyer-secret-oath.pdf (80 KB)  ECF 35-2 - Exhibit 2 (Hawaii DOH Verification of Hawaiian Birth).pdf (128.5 KB)  2015_02_25_doc_297_pof.pdf (136.9 KB)  Hovind Unsealed Arrest Documents.pdf (359.7 KB)  Burg v douglas 1.pdf (113.4 KB)  Letter to George Holding 12-7-13.pdf (167.5 KB)  ECF 35-2 - Exhibit 2 (Hawaii DOH Verification of Hawaiian Birth).pdf (128.5 KB)  314 CV 01881 JAM.compressed.pdf (904.5 KB)  OBJECTION-NOTGUILTYPLEA-2.pdf (31.6 KB)  EDQ Accepted Version.pdf (779.2 KB)  187 HovindHansen2014 05132015.pdf (62.1 KB)  hbo-showtime-mayweather-manny-infringement-update-wm.pdf (69.2 KB)  BrCoComm021015ArmySpecialOpsCommand.pdf (361.4 KB)  Google_Inc_v_Hood__mssdce-14-00981__0100.0.pdf (70.3 KB)  Magna Carta.pdf (106.8 KB)  Trussell2.pdf (90.4 KB)  Trussell_5.pdf (1.7 MB)  RodClass146.pdf (66.5 KB)  141014-EbolaComplaint13.pdf (433.6 KB)  2015_03_10_notice_forfeiture_property_holders.pdf (81.8 KB)  Hansen wants 90 dollars back 03022015.pdf (68 KB)  Hovind-Jaworski-Treasury Complaint.pdf (837.7 KB)  burg v douglas file on demand.pdf (51.7 KB)  burg v douglas affidavit and something.pdf (54.1 KB)  USCOURTS-ctd-3_14-cv-01881-0.pdf (137.4 KB)  ECF 18 - 2012-05-08 - MDEC Memo in Support of 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.pdf (457.1 KB)  mandatory_judicial_notice_for_kent.pdf (608.1 KB)  dean v anderson.pdf (158.2 KB)  OBJECTION&MOTIONTODISMISS.pdf (80.5 KB)  anti-gov_movement_guidebook.pdf (1 MB)  188 HovindHansen2014 05132015.pdf (62.4 KB)  showtime-hbo-mayweather-manny-tro-wm.pdf (83.2 KB)  Google_Inc_v_Hood__mssdce-14-00981__0087.0.pdf (225.3 KB)  Jurisprudence.pdf (160 KB)  31-1.pdf (118.1 KB)  14-08-05 Bill of info filed.pdf (123.9 KB)  Phillips_Reagan_Sovrun_order.pdf (993.4 KB)  179121515658-3.pdf (177.8 KB)  DeMoreta-Folch v Rodriguez dismissal.pdf (81.8 KB)  Hansen Motion to Quash 03022015.pdf (93.6 KB)  Jaworski-Treasury 2014 Dismissal.pdf (10.9 KB)  Hansen Motion for Misc Relief 03022015.pdf (202 KB)  burg v douglas 1-6.pdf (83.3 KB)  Hedgepeth-v-Mobile_Cnty.pdf (228.1 KB)  06-29-2015-distrain-1-james-c-hankinson1.pdf (2.9 MB)  D.D.C.-04505014156.pdf (30.6 KB)  Writ of Replevin.pdf (47.3 KB)  Hansen_Motions123014.pdf (421.8 KB)  Dean v anderson 10.pdf (1.2 MB)  Your Input Is Needed!.compressed.pdf (369.6 KB)  Showtime Networks Inc. et al v Joe Doe 1 et al docket.pdf (206.9 KB)  Google_Inc_v_Hood__mssdce-14-00981__0082.0.pdf (28.3 KB)  Rights.pdf (132.4 KB)  31-main.pdf (76.4 KB)  gov.uscourts.gand.208876.1.0.pdf (973.4 KB)  Siegmeister_Case_Summary_0814141.pdf (120.6 KB)  TN_INCIDENT-1.pdf (15.8 KB)  BundyRanchFreedomReunionflyer032615.pdf (773.5 KB)  Motion-for-Stay_1171.pdf (46.8 KB)  Hovind Hansen ORDER 02252015.pdf (61 KB)  Hansen Motion and Notice to Counsel 03022015.pdf (311.3 KB)  burg v douglas 1-7.pdf (193.2 KB)  THE FDLE POLITICAL WEAPON.pdf (1.3 MB)  C072785(2).PDF (284.5 KB)  dean_v_anderson_9.pdf (2.3 MB)  The County Sheriff, By What Authority.pdf (122.2 KB)  Showtime_Networks_Inc_et_al_v_John_Doe_1_et_al__cacdce-15-03147__0001.0.compressed.pdf (1.4 MB)  Google_Inc_v_Hood__mssdce-14-00981__0081.0.pdf (91.7 KB)  gov.uscourts.mied.293401.1.0.pdf (421.7 KB)  14-08-04 letter filed to Judge Munkittick.pdf (329.3 KB)  252-Jo_Hovind_Sentencing.pdf (208.6 KB)  CLGJ 1901 Manatee County.pdf (68.7 KB)  hagans-speech-to-fl-supreme-court-committee.pdf (16.5 KB)  Hovind Jury Instruction 2 02252015.pdf (56.7 KB)  THE FDLE POLITICAL WEAPON.pdf (1.3 MB)  State Sovereignty of Sheriff.pdf (22.7 KB)  Google_Inc_v_Hood__mssdce-14-00981__0080.0.pdf (493.5 KB)  gov.uscourts.mied.293401.2.0.pdf (27 KB)  gov.uscourts.dcd.161854.157.0.pdf (24 KB)  U.S v. Williams, Judtice Antonin Scalia.pdf (152.4 KB)  Trussell_4.pdf (65.8 KB)  LettertoDr.Heinrich.pdf (494.9 KB)  N.D.Fla._1-14-cv-00195_1.pdf (258.8 KB)  taxcourt4245-10.pdf (58.1 KB)  Hovind Jury Instruction 3 02252015.pdf (54.5 KB)  Taitz v Burwell doc 5.pdf (459.3 KB)  07-01-2015_6th_Request_info_on_Distrain_case_2014-201CF__Willie_Meggs.pdf (3.4 MB)  Natural Born Citizenship.pdf (172.5 KB)  3_mandamus_judges.pdf (928.5 KB)  Duty of the Sheriff.pdf (119.9 KB)  Google_Inc_v_Hood__mssdce-14-00981__0068.0.pdf (116.3 KB)  andrews-v-us-41.pdf (125.2 KB)  Chronology of Events.pdf (19 KB)  Compar Juries.pdf (26.6 KB)  Steven Lawrence Dean Judgement.pdf (703.6 KB)  IRS Letter Exhibit 24.pdf (25.8 KB)  Sld new lawsuit.pdf (309.7 KB)  Terry Trussell, what's really on trial.pdf (20.4 KB)  Hovind Jury Instruction 4 02252015.pdf (61.9 KB)  burg.pdf (2.5 KB)  2014-11-25--Petition for Review.pdf (441.8 KB)  melendres v arpaio 1093.pdf (48 KB)  judicial_notice_to_conyers_an_congress.pdf (363.2 KB)  Judge_Parker_Letter_807141.pdf (316.5 KB)  precision32_case list.pdf (76.8 KB)  Dean civil case.pdf (139.5 KB)  61-main.pdf (736.4 KB)  Hagan's speech to FL Supreme Court Committee.pdf (2
0.6 KB)  Klayman v Obama et all RICO Fox Order Doc 10.pdf (64.5 KB)  245770006-Kent-Hovind-Revocation-Signature.pdf (167.7 KB)  r840_10.pdf (827.5 KB)  Roach v. Obama - Opinion 12-18-14.pdf (167.5 KB)  194 HovindHansen2015 05162015.pdf (28.7 KB)  D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1094_ORDER Granting in Part P Motion for Discovery.pdf (83.1 KB)  National Liberty Alliance Organization.pdf (80.3 KB)  precision32_violence injunction.pdf (85.2 KB)  precision32_criminal2.pdf (121.1 KB)  61-1.pdf (393.3 KB)  Rule-26-Disclosures-Taitz-v-Burwell.pdf (27.7 KB)  216 HovindHansen2014 07062015.pdf (152.4 KB)  649-97.pdf (10.5 KB)  Klayman v Obama et all RICO Motion to Dismiss Doc 9.pdf (115.3 KB)  Restore the Rule of Law v 1.1.pdf (22.7 KB)  Motion to consolidate.pdf (639.4 KB)  D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1094_ORDER Granting in Part P Motion for Discovery.pdf (83.1 KB)  National Liberty Alliance Nationwide CPS Lawsuit _ Facebook.compressed (1).pdf (395.5 KB)  Document.pdf (31.2 KB)  The Writ of Mandamus Petition.pdf (190.2 KB)  Montgomery v Risen doc 9.pdf (684.2 KB)  Hagan Smith docket_2003.pdf (66.1 KB)  precision32_criminal1.pdf (85.2 KB)  Klayman v city pages doc 62.pdf (58.3 KB)  Hovind 2nd Trial Date 03202015.pdf (63.4 KB)  217 HovindHansen2014 07082015.pdf (176.6 KB)  DeMoreta-Folch v somebody complaint.pdf (986.4 KB)  Taitz v Astrue doc 51.pdf (21.9 KB)  Klayman v Obama Terrorism doc 1 complaint.pdf (312 KB)  USA v. Benham _ Michigan Western District Court _ Case No. 1_07-cr-00094, Judge Jonker.pdf (771.4 KB)  Order denying motion to consolidate.pdf (280.5 KB)  JEFF-TOM-1-15-13_Dudley-R1.pdf (417.5 KB)  gov.uscourts.ca5.15-40238.00503054621.0(1).pdf (586.2 KB)  taxcourt4245-10.pdf (58.1 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.1.0.pdf (93.3 KB)  gov.uscourts.gand.208876.2.0.pdf (1.3 MB)  gov.uscourts.gand.208876.3.0.pdf (221 KB)  Hagan Smith_PSC_2005.pdf (70.4 KB)  sheriff_campaign.pdf (129.2 KB)  Trussell_Official Records - Search Results.pdf (125.5 KB)  Klayman v city pages doc 65.pdf (44.6 KB)  Hovind JOA Brief 03202015.pdf (73.1 KB)  Hovind Hansen Statement of the Case 02262015.pdf (25.4 KB)  256674685-Posner-Hakeen-El-Bey-Order.pdf (95.1 KB)  218 HovindHansen2014 07092015.pdf (1.7 MB)  Klayman v Obama Terrorism doc 9 motion to dismiss.pdf (74.3 KB)  FREEDOM_WATCH,_INC._v._U.S._DE_37.pdf (64.7 KB)  GRAND-JURY-PRESENTMENT-OF-EVIDENCE.compressed.pdf (1.9 MB)  15-05-09 Fed Habeas Corpus Default.pdf (1.7 MB)  201312520 10-23-2014 11thcir.pdf (36.7 KB)  Walter Sullivan docket.pdf (165.2 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.12.0.pdf (48.6 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.10.0.pdf (45.2 KB)  143 HovindHansen2014 03122015.pdf (210.8 KB)  Hagan Smith_docket_1998.pdf (60.2 KB)  156-main.pdf (40.6 KB)  R09.1 Sovereign citizens briefing paper Sept 12 (Crowell).pdf (309.5 KB)  klayman v city pages doc 74.pdf (48.5 KB)  Hansen Release Denied 03202015.pdf (63.6 KB)  JUDICIARY COURTS DB REPORT.pdf (12.6 KB)  Hansen Proposed Jury Instruction 02262015.pdf (392.6 KB)  Hansen v Schneider 315-cv-00307-MCR-CJK.pdf (461.7 KB)  Taitz v Burwell doc 4.pdf (264.2 KB)  Dean v Universal doc 27 dismissed.pdf (103.6 KB)  the-law-vs-statutes.pdf (61.6 KB)  Walter Sullivan criminal record.pdf (77 KB)  WIAM--LawCollegeApplication.pdf (59.9 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.17.0.pdf (69.4 KB)  Keenan_complaint_11-23-2011_SDNY.compressed.pdf (1.9 MB)  Smith-Brief.compressed.pdf (1.1 MB)  Rodger Dowdell_FEC report.pdf (141.8 KB)  156-1.pdf (748.1 KB)  gov.uscourts.utd.70516.86.0.pdf (144.1 KB)  GetDocumentImage.pdf (216 KB)  Hansen Proposed Voir Dire 02262015.pdf (390.4 KB)  NLA--NationalMondayCall_03-02-2015_TranscribedExcerpts.pdf (102.8 KB)  49K06-1406-SC-002882.pdf (25.1 KB)  THE FDLE POLITICAL WEAPON.pdf (1.3 MB)  Hovind Motion by Gov for Continuance 01262015.pdf (41.8 KB)  dean v anderson 7.pdf (61.1 KB)  5_mandamus_2nd_amendment.pdf (886.4 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.16.0.pdf (45.4 KB)  S.D.Tex._1-14-cv-00119_51.pdf (105.5 KB)  54d12a3d80fd3.pdf.pdf (183.8 KB)  Welcome to COLLOIDAL SILVER by CS PRO.pdf (1.7 MB)  Hagan Smith_FEC report.pdf (101.9 KB)  156-2.pdf (26.4 KB)  49C01-1409-MI-030499.pdf (23.8 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.18.0.pdf (54.7 KB)  Uni-Phase Max, Best CS System Around.pdf (775.1 KB)  directors_instructions.pdf (52.8 KB)  23 years.pdf (273.2 KB)  ASK Chat 3-3-2015.pdf (174 KB)  THE FDLE POLITICAL WEAPON.pdf (1.3 MB)  Texas-v-US-filed-notice-of-fraud.pdf (875.5 KB)  dean v anderson 8.pdf (147 KB)  15-05-09 Fed Habeas Corpus Memorandum of Decision.compressed.pdf (313.5 KB)  NCCPA-CustodyList-20150430__E2CB58AF5BC6A45FG4G8.pdf (86.1 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.23.0.pdf (67.9 KB)  Walter Sullivan_Hillsborough County FL.pdf (181.1 KB)  intake_instructions.pdf (82.7 KB)  Smith_8840.pdf (188.1 KB)  START_UnderstandingLawEnforcementIntelligenceProcesses_July2014.pdf (718.4 KB)  Roudybush order.pdf (29.3 KB)  intake_instructions.pdf (82.7 KB)  orly.pdf (52.9 KB)  Hansen Motion 01222015.pdf (176.7 KB)  Ingress v McKenney docket.pdf (258.7 KB)  Burney divorce.pdf (183.3 KB)  NAIDU--ChristianLawManifesto_112812rev2.pdf (151.2 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.42.0.pdf (44.5 KB)  gov.uscourts.flnd.78184.6.0.pdf (222.8 KB)  gov.uscourts.dcd.161854.157.0.pdf (24 KB)  directors_instructions.pdf (52.8 KB)  Smith_3890.pdf (161.8 KB)  application_and_power_of_attorney_0.pdf (217 KB)  150324-filed Clinton RICO complaint.pdf (726.7 KB)  dean v anderson 12.pdf (147.9 KB)  nationallibertyalliance.org_2014-12-12.pdf (257 KB)  Klayman v Clinton et al docket_05142015.pdf (208.2 KB)  USA v. Rodney Class (0_15-cr-03015), D.C. Circuit U.S.pdf (160.3 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.43.0.pdf (48.8 KB)  Melendres,_et_al._v._Arpaio,_e_1043.pdf (70.6 KB)  application_and_instructions.pdf (217.7 KB)  Smith_2200.pdf (173 KB)  SER_Patent_523793.PDF (72.7 KB)  Hansen Motion to Dismiss 02272015.pdf (215.4 KB)  Martinez v. CalTrans.PDF (187.5 KB)  Hovind Opposition to Motion 01272015.pdf (65.5 KB)  Hansen-PD-Files-Motion-01082015.pdf (186.9 KB)  dean v anderson 13.pdf (146.2 KB)  gov.uscourts.nysd.414151.35.0.pdf (433.4 KB)  cadc-01207704713.pdf (217.1 KB)  Reprt pf Birth Abroad.pdf (344.9 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.48.0.pdf (40.6 KB)  Twitter+11.2.14.pdf (101.4 KB)  CLASS ECF 159.pdf (31.8 KB)  Smith_2735.pdf (158.6 KB)  William Wolf criminal complaint.pdf (890.6 KB)  challenge.pdf (350.3 KB)  Hansen Position on Delay 01272015.pdf (230 KB)  sovereignty_amendment.pdf (300.5 KB)  Hovind-Hansen-Trial-Status-Hearing.pdf (53.9 KB)  Hansen-Motion-to-Compel-01072015.pdf (83 KB)  gov.uscourts.nysd.414151.38.0.pdf (289.8 KB)  ACJYwPDO.pdf (271.8 KB)  FREE-KENT-HOVIND-013.pdf (160.8 KB)  RRenfrow_Memo_and_Recommend.pdf (976.9 KB)  Klayman motion for writ denied 15-10546.pdf (166.8 KB)  Clark et al v Porter.pdf (240.7 KB)  gov.uscourts.tnwd.14233.5.0.pdf (135.6 KB)  Smith_3148.pdf (180.5 KB)  US v Williams.pdf (248.5 KB)  Montgomery v Risen Complaint.pdf (508.8 KB)  Phillips_Reagan_sovcit_memo.pdf (993.4 KB)  Hovind Motion by Govt 02172015.pdf (37.6 KB)  HovindHansen New Prosecutor 02232015.pdf (35.5 KB)  TRUTH-AFFIDAVIT-NOTICE-OF-UNDERSTANDING.pdf (181.4 KB)  McCluskey et al v. Belford High School et al.pdf (69.4 KB)  Renfrow_Compl.pdf (96.8 KB)  192 HovindHansen2015 05152015.pdf (27.9 KB)  Ed Hale.rtf (10 KB)  vogt chat.rtf (160.9 KB)  vogt chat.rtf (160.9 KB)  vogt chat.rtf (216.9 KB)  volinwow.rtf (90.5 KB)  volinwow.rtf (91.2 KB)  FOGBOW--WorkaroundsForHardReturns.rtf (394 B)  I'm reading.txt (124 B)  The Interview (2014).txt (32.8 KB)  sch13ga_14925.txt (13.1 KB)  cf945708.txt (9 KB)  0001072613-07-000478.txt (4.8 KB)  GIFS--Batch01--ZIP.zip (813.1 KB)  DHS_Sovereign-Citizen-Extremist-Ideology-Report-02-05-2015.zip (2 MB) 
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1454

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:52 am

I just posted this comment on the abomination's latest whine about us:





Adrien,





I will go over this entire godawful post line-by-line (as both LM K and I did with the responses you amended to our comments on the other thread), but I'll do it in installments and I'll post it on the thread over at the Fogbow---where I can better deal with your horrendous formatting and avoid your annoying tendency to insert your responses directly into comments. Something, I would note, would be very disrespectful and annoying to your other readers... if you had any.The beginning of his exegesis titled The Failing, Flailing Discombobulation of Obama’s Babies was the following (embedded in a blockquote):


~a few choice [out-of-context, poorly formatted] excepts from my time in thefogbow.com [at the Fogbow] quarantined toilet as the vermin there [where the erudite members of the boogle] attempted to filet [completely debunked] my Seattle-Vancouver Scenario, but failed. The resident genius demons [residents] there are exceedingly clever is[n] their human insights, but [as] their real purpose is nothing other than deflection, obfuscation, and delegitimation [the identification, clarification, and justification] of anything that dares question the impeccable pedigree of the Great One, -the socialist’s American “Dear Leader” [the truth].


~note that these comments are the one’s [ones] that are fit to print [don't address the merits of my arguments or expose my many fallacious assumptions]. You can’t begin to imagine the ones that were not [convincingly demonstrated my lack of research skills, critical thinking ability, objectivity, understanding, and respect for the Constitution].


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I, obama–nation [Lucas Smit... er... the abomination] wrote:Well, sammy boy [Suranis], you just shot your own head off [a hole in my scenario] with that fine elucidation. Thanks!The first part of this doesn't belong in a block quote (which doesn't belong at the beginning of any blog post that isn't a reply to what's being quoted) and the last part is out-of-context and doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph in any case. Not a promising start for the abomination, but don't worry... it gets much, much worse.





](*,) :crazy: :toxic: :crazy: ](*,)
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7060
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1455

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:29 am

Slarti!! Stop growling and drop that bone right now!! Damn, should have left him chained up in the yard!





Slarti going cold turkey? Ha!

User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1456

Post by LM K » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:31 am

Nash's site is like "Horders" for those who are tediously verbose.
"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1457

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:45 am

Slarti!! Stop growling and drop that bone right now!! Damn, should have left him chained up in the yard!





Slarti going cold turkey? Ha!Never said I was going cold turkey from playing with this bone, just posting over at the farthest point from the bright center of the blogosphere that is the single year-old rant by Mario against Squeeky Fromm because Jack Maskell :(( :(( :(( that is all that seems to be left of his once obscure backwater blog.





If the abomination thinks he can pull a Sir Robin and bravely run away to snipe at us from his monument to bad writing and worse theories (that has a long way to go before it could hope to make "obscure backwater"), he's got another think coming...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7060
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1458

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:56 am

Yup, Slarti, Mario has a thick head but a thin skin.But then I'm only an "infant" in his eyes, what could I possibly know? Hey, Mario, you're an ignorant idiot! Oh heck! - I forgot for a moment that unless the Supreme Court issues a unanimous opinion affirming that Mario is an ignorant idiot, they must be assumed to concur with Mario's view that he is the most outstanding constitutional expert of our times.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16653
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1459

Post by Suranis » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:57 am

One thing does strike me though. Since only people on the list can read this, he is free to say whatever he wants to all his reader (see what I did there) and there is no way to point out he is full of shit by linking this thread.Not that its a problem with this nutball because eve we aren't interested enough in him to follow him over to his blog despite him practically begging us to.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1460

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:17 am

One thing does strike me though. Since only people on the list can read this, he is free to say whatever he wants to all his reader (see what I did there) and there is no way to point out he is full of shit by linking this thread.Not that its a problem with this nutball because eve we aren't interested enough in him to follow him over to his blog despite him practically begging us to.Actually, I consider that a feature and not a problem. It confuses his reader to no end---not hard since evidence suggests that it is David "out of breath" Farrar who is still happy with the job Orly did of representing him in court but is unwilling to accept Nash's theories. Honestly, can there be anyone stupid enough to believe Nash? I would suggest that such an intelligence level falls below the threshold needed to maintain autonomic functions.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15668
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1461

Post by kate520 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:36 am

Nash's site is like "Horders" for those who are tediously verbose. =)) =))
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1462

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:59 am

One thing does strike me though. Since only people on the list can read this, he is free to say whatever he wants to all his reader (see what I did there) and there is no way to point out he is full of shit by linking this thread.Not that its a problem with this nutball because eve we aren't interested enough in him to follow him over to his blog despite him practically begging us to.Actually, I consider that a feature and not a problem. It confuses his reader to no end---not hard since evidence suggests that it is David "out of breath" Farrar who is still happy with the job Orly did of representing him in court but is unwilling to accept Nash's theories. Honestly, can there be anyone stupid enough to believe Nash? I would suggest that such an intelligence level falls below the threshold needed to maintain autonomic functions.Possibly Martha Trowbridge either that or they'd be fighting over which theory is more sane to them.

User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1463

Post by LM K » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:17 pm

Nash's site is like "Horders" for those who are tediously verbose. =)) =))I knew you'd love that, my dear! :hug:
"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7060
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1464

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:38 pm

Nash's site is like "Horders" for those who are tediously verbose.Is that better or worse than being verbosely tedious?

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1465

Post by Jim » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:55 pm

Nash's site is like "Horders" for those who are tediously verbose.It sounds like another installment of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series...something along the lines of "The Black Hole of Birferstan".Information goes in, emptiness comes out.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1466

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:45 pm

To further my claim that the abomination has the craziest birther theories out there, here is something he had to say on the subject of nomenclature over on Mario's blog:





Regarding the nomenclature of the English common law, and its connection to the language of the Constitution, [highlight]that simply refers to the words themselves, legal terms, but not to the definition of those words[/highlight]. A good example other than natural born citizen is that of treason.





The British had their own definition of treason, but the founders and framers rejected it along with perpetual allegiance and common law dual-nationality citizenship.


Instead, in the Constitution they substituted their own American definition of treason. So the nomenclature remained the same because there were no unique American terms to replace the British terms, but the definition of those terms were on American terms, so to speak.That's right, not only does the man who styles himself the first person to understand US citizenship correctly in over a century think that the term "nomenclature" refers simply to the words that comprise legal terms but not their definitions, as an example of this, our supra-genius cites a case where the founders explicitly defined one of these terms because they were using it in a manner different than its meaning in the English common law.





Quite frankly, I'm floored. :swoon:





Earlier, Nash had argued that "natural born" had no meaning (without "citizen") since both terms were adjectives (suggesting that his grammar school may not have acknowledged the existence of adverbs), but that line of thinking is worthy of a Nobel prize compared to this.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1467

Post by LM K » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:28 pm

that simply refers to the words themselves, legal terms, but not to the definition of those words.Well, that's one way to twist an argument ... redefine the English language.Point ... Nash! He wins!! :cheer:
"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1468

Post by ballantine » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:29 pm

To further my claim that the abomination has the craziest birther theories out there, here is something he had to say on the subject of nomenclature over on Mario's blog:





Regarding the nomenclature of the English common law, and its connection to the language of the Constitution, [highlight]that simply refers to the words themselves, legal terms, but not to the definition of those words[/highlight]. A good example other than natural born citizen is that of treason.





The British had their own definition of treason, but the founders and framers rejected it along with perpetual allegiance and common law dual-nationality citizenship.


Instead, in the Constitution they substituted their own American definition of treason. So the nomenclature remained the same because there were no unique American terms to replace the British terms, but the definition of those terms were on American terms, so to speak.That's right, not only does the man who styles himself the first person to understand US citizenship correctly in over a century think that the term "nomenclature" refers simply to the words that comprise legal terms but not their definitions, as an example of this, our supra-genius cites a case where the founders explicitly defined one of these terms because they were using it in a manner different than its meaning in the English common law.





Quite frankly, I'm floored. :swoon:





Earlier, Nash had argued that "natural born" had no meaning (without "citizen") since both terms were adjectives (suggesting that his grammar school may not have acknowledged the existence of adverbs), but that line of thinking is worthy of a Nobel prize compared to this.U.S. Constitution:





"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."





Blackstone:





"The third species of treason is, "if a man do levy war against our lord the king in his realm......If a man be adherent to the king's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere," he is also declared guilty of high treason."





I just can't figure out where the founders got their definition of "treason."

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1469

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:33 pm

U.S. Constitution:"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."Blackstone:"The third species of treason is, "if a man do levy war against our lord the king in his realm......If a man be adherent to the king's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere," he is also declared guilty of high treason."I just can't figure out where the founders got their definition of "treason."That bit where they require at least two witnesses or a confession makes it totally and completely different, don't you know... :-k
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1470

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:36 pm

that simply refers to the words themselves, legal terms, but not to the definition of those words.Well, that's one way to twist an argument ... redefine the English language.Point ... Nash! He wins!! :cheer: Nash doesn't want to redefine things, he wants to undefine them. Except, of course, the words "natural", "born" and "citizen" who's meanings he wants to severely restrict.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1471

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:37 pm

Foolz! There are a whole lot more werdz in Blackstone! Completely different.(Where is the dunce cap smiley?)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1472

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:45 pm

Foolz! There are a whole lot more werdz in Blackstone! Completely different.(Where is the dunce cap smiley?)Isn't that Nash's profile pic?
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12083
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1473

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:49 pm

[link]How To Know If You Are A Crackpot,http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/07/1 ... a-crackpot[/link]Given all our discussions about what is, and what is not, science its time to return to basics. How can you tell if you are a crackpot? It's a difficult question. Thankfully physicist John Baez has given us a helpful formula for making the call.Below is Baez's now infamous Crackpot Index. Try it on your friends if not yourself.(I have taken this from Baez's own website here)A -5 point starting credit.1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.Much more at the link.Could easily be adapted to birtherism and other non-physics-related firlds. Mr. Nash seems like he would score extremely high.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1474

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:12 pm

[link]How To Know If You Are A Crackpot,http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/07/1 ... a-crackpot[/link]





Given all our discussions about what is, and what is not, science its time to return to basics. How can you tell if you are a crackpot? It's a difficult question. Thankfully physicist John Baez has given us a helpful formula for making the call.





Below is Baez's now infamous Crackpot Index. Try it on your friends if not yourself.





(I have taken this from Baez's own website here)





A -5 point starting credit.


1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.


2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.


3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.Much more at the link.





Could easily be adapted to birtherism and other non-physics-related firlds. Mr. Nash seems like he would score extremely high.

Well, let's see...





Using the estimates I made regarding the abomination's 2 part exegesis on which this thread was originally based ([link]for Rikker,http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 75#p618650[/link]) as well as his statements here and revising the questions as appropriate, here's what I come up with:





A -5 point starting credit.








SCORE: -5


TOTAL: -5





1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.





I estimated 170 errors of fact.


SCORE: 170


TOTAL: 165





2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.





With 130 unsupported assumptions and 90 baseless insinuations we get...


SCORE: 440


TOTAL: 605





3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.





I think we can safely say there are at least a couple of dozen of these.


SCORE: 72


TOTAL: 677





5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.





How many statements have LM K and W4 made on this thread? I think there must be at least 40 or 50 of these.


SCORE: 200


TOTAL: 877





5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.





I think the "Vancouver scenario" is comprised of these. Let's say that there are about 10 elements to that story.


SCORE: 50


TOTAL: 927





5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).





I found 11 words in all caps in his first 8 posts on this thread. At this rate, there were probably about 208 words in all caps.


SCORE: 1040


TOTAL: 1967





5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".





Let's say he's made 5 errors regarding the names of relevant authorities.


SCORE: 25


TOTAL: 1992





10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).





There have been at least a dozen cases where he asserted his "natural law" doctrine over the Constitution, an act of Congress, or a SCOTUS ruling


SCORE: 120


TOTAL: 2112





10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.





I don't recall Mr. Nash ever mentioning schooling.


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 2112








10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)





Nash picks up all 20.


SCORE: 20


TOTAL: 2312





10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.





Not that I'm aware of.


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 2312





10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.





We'll give him 10 points for his little fiction about being paid to post here.


SCORE: 10


TOTAL: 2322





10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.





Nash thinks the entire nomenclature of the English common law is just the words, not the meanings. This translates to hundreds of improper definitions. We'll just give him 1000 points for the omnibus here.


SCORE: 1000


TOTAL: 3322





10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".





He's never asked anyone to "complete" his theories, so we'll score this one a zero.


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3322





10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.





Let's give him 50 points for his refusal to accept authorities like the Hawai'i DoH.


SCORE: 50


TOTAL: 3372





10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".





I can't think of anything which would apply here.


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3372





10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).





He made an analogy to Einstein a couple of times and I think his claim that the attorney general misrepresented the holding in Wong Kim Ark would count here.


SCORE: 30


TOTAL: 3402





10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".





He claims that he is the first to understand citizenship since the Framers, I think that counts.


SCORE: 10


TOTAL: 3412





20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)





We'll give him the 20 points for complaining about my attempts to quantify his crazy.


SCORE: 20


TOTAL: 3432





20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3432








20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).





See Einstein above.


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3432





20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.





His myth of "natural law" counts here.


SCORE: 20


TOTAL: 3452








20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.





He shoots... he scores!


SCORE: 20


TOTAL: 3472





20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)





Neither the Nash Rambler or the Nash equilibrium are named after him.


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3472





20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.





He has never provided any authority whatsoever to support his "natural law".


SCORE: 20


TOTAL: 3492





20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3492








20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3492








30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3492





30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3492





30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3492





30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.





n/a


SCORE: 0


TOTAL: 3492





40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.





I'm not sure he's gone over the Goodwin line, but he's certainly leveled plenty of ad hominem attacks against anyone who doesn't agree. Let's give him 30.


SCORE: 30


TOTAL: 3522





40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.





His conspiracy started at least a century ago, I think we can call this a big "yes".


SCORE: 40


TOTAL: 3562





40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.





No question on this one.


SCORE: 40


TOTAL: 3602





40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)





I think we can give him the 40, but not the 30 bonus points


SCORE: 40


TOTAL: 3642





50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.





He wont give or accept conditions for falsifying his speculations---that counts.


SCORE: 50


TOTAL: 3692


A final score of nearly 3,700 seems pretty high to me... :-k








:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1475

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:18 pm

I suspect that only Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, Larry Klayman and Rodney-Idiot; [class] would score as high.

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”