Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 14:24:13 GMT -5
As far as CMKX is concerned, it could all be a big scam. I have no clue whether or not there is a trust set aside for the shareholders. However, the term global currency reset was first introduced (to me) by Al Hodges. I am now of the opinion that event will in fact take place. And if Al Hodges was right about that, then there is a significant possibility that he is right about our trust. Briwadd Thanks for your cogent and honest reply. I guess the point about which we will diverge is that which you define as "a significant possibility." My thinking goes something like this: just because I can convincingly introduce you to Kantian ethics does not make it "a significant possibility" I can do the same for Newtonian physics, or even the ethics of Robert Kane for that matter. Even better: though I can convincingly introduce you to Newtonian physics; I wouldn't expect you to be "significantly" convinced if I tell you that a teacup circles in orbit around the planet Mars. Certainly not to your surprise, I am much more the skeptic than you, Briwadd. At this point in our long history here, I trust the evidence and nothing more than the evidence. Without any evidence to support the notion of a trust, the "possibility" (or probability) of a trust does not increase "significantly" because Al Hodges tells me he believes in love or Rawlings baseball gloves or global resets. Warren, Furthering your argument that Al being right about our trust is not a consequence of being right about the global currency reset, if that inductive propositional fallacy were true, then would not the opposite, or antecedent, also be true? If Al is wrong about the global currency reset, then there is a significant possibility that he is also wrong about our trust. The one hasty conclusion I will draw from your straw man analysis is, now I believe that if Al is right about the trust and believes in Rawlings baseball gloves, then all CMKXers who believe Al is right about the trust also believe in Rawlings baseball gloves. Strangely enough, I am a CMKXer, I believe in Rawlings baseball gloves, but... ;D Consequently, it makes me feel better to go down the mink hole of hoping that Al is not wrong about the global currency reset than to go down the rabbit hole of believing he is right about our trust. As far as getting paid, I think the teacup orbiting Mars is a relatively distinct possibility. Mike
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Dec 30, 2013 15:50:20 GMT -5
This is now the same message we have received for the third December in a row. I just can't get excited about it finally happening but I sure hope I am wrong. And it's always happening "soon"
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Dec 30, 2013 16:53:05 GMT -5
My opinions are not based entirely on Al Hodges efforts, but my various sources of information outside the CMKX boards...including sources that believe Al is wrong regarding the World Global Settlements. So my perspective is shaped by many things, not just Al's updates. Briwadd It seems my intent has been misunderstood. I wasn't commenting about what sources you may or may not have regarding your opinion, I was simply responding to the logic of your "if-then" argument that I found wanting. You wrote: "if Al was right about that (the global reset), then there is a significant possibility that he is right about our trust". I was unable to make that leap and explained why not.
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on Dec 30, 2013 17:01:28 GMT -5
I don't think my 'if-then' logic is that far out there. If it turns out that Al is right about the global currency reset, then it would stand to reason he could be right about a trust set aside for shareholders. The GCR would be no small event. In fact, it would be unprecedented. It would literally reshape the financial balance of the world and result in a massive transfer of wealth.
It's not like Al is stating that the price of gas is going up and I am somehow linking the two by saying if the gas goes up, then we must have a trust. I am simply saying that if something as monumental as a world financial reset occurs, well then, maybe his information on the trust is accurate too.
Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Dec 30, 2013 17:07:43 GMT -5
Warren, Furthering your argument that Al being right about our trust is not a consequence of being right about the global currency reset, if that inductive propositional fallacy were true, then would not the opposite, or antecedent, also be true? If Al is wrong about the global currency reset, then there is a significant possibility that he is also wrong about our trust. The one hasty conclusion I will draw from your straw man analysis is, now I believe that if Al is right about the trust and believes in Rawlings baseball gloves, then all CMKXers who believe Al is right about the trust also believe in Rawlings baseball gloves. Strangely enough, I am a CMKXer, I believe in Rawlings baseball gloves, but... ;D Consequently, it makes me feel better to go down the mink hole of hoping that Al is not wrong about the global currency reset than to go down the rabbit hole of believing he is right about our trust. As far as getting paid, I think the teacup orbiting Mars is a relatively distinct possibility. Mike Ha! I'm "whole-ly" with you on both what to avoid and our teacup measure of probability. But we have a different take on my piece of reasoning. I'm saying that there is no equivalence between Al's possibly being right about a global reset and his being right about a CMKX payout. So the opposite of that is the same. Specifically, there is no equivalence between Al's being possibly right about a CMKX payout and his being right about a global reset. Being right about one does not increase the probability of his being right about the other. As for whether or not he is right about either ... let's say it all together ... where's the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Dec 30, 2013 17:09:43 GMT -5
I don't think my 'if-then' logic is that far out there. If it turns out that Al is right about the global currency reset, then it would stand to reason he could be right about a trust set aside for shareholders. The GCR would be no small event. In fact, it would be unprecedented. It would literally reshape the financial balance of the world and result in a massive transfer of wealth. It's not like Al is stating that the price of gas is going up and I am somehow linking the two by saying if the gas goes up, then we must have a trust. I am simply saying that if something as monumental as a world financial reset occurs, well then, maybe his information on the trust is accurate too. Briwadd I know that's what you think Briwadd. I just don't go there with you. We both explained our positions well enough. Thanks for taking the time and effort to dialogue. I appreciate you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 21:02:31 GMT -5
Warren, Furthering your argument that Al being right about our trust is not a consequence of being right about the global currency reset, if that inductive propositional fallacy were true, then would not the opposite, or antecedent, also be true? If Al is wrong about the global currency reset, then there is a significant possibility that he is also wrong about our trust. The one hasty conclusion I will draw from your straw man analysis is, now I believe that if Al is right about the trust and believes in Rawlings baseball gloves, then all CMKXers who believe Al is right about the trust also believe in Rawlings baseball gloves. Strangely enough, I am a CMKXer, I believe in Rawlings baseball gloves, but... ;D Consequently, it makes me feel better to go down the mink hole of hoping that Al is not wrong about the global currency reset than to go down the rabbit hole of believing he is right about our trust. As far as getting paid, I think the teacup orbiting Mars is a relatively distinct possibility. Mike Ha! I'm "whole-ly" with you on both what to avoid and our teacup measure of probability. But we have a different take on my piece of reasoning. I'm saying that there is no equivalence between Al's possibly being right about a global reset and his being right about a CMKX payout. So the opposite of that is the same. Specifically, there is no equivalence between Al's being possibly right about a CMKX payout and his being right about a global reset. Being right about one does not increase the probability of his being right about the other. As for whether or not he is right about either ... let's say it all together ... where's the evidence? Actually, We are on the same page, I was being your satirical sidekick. Briwadd's spurious relationship between Al being right about the gcr being an indication or measure of his rightness about the trust is the old if A, then B fallacy. I thought you masterfully illustrated the distinction between correlation and probability. Mike Mike
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on Dec 30, 2013 21:24:40 GMT -5
LOL...Well guys, we will just have to agree to disagree. I still believe your taking my post out of context. If Al said "If the sun comes up on Tuesday, we will be paid on Wednesday", then you have a valid point. However, Al has predicted a never before monumental earth changing event. If that in fact happens, then the possibility of a trust becomes more real. And I assure you, if you wake up one morning and the headline news is global financial reset, all of us, including you two, will be on the edge of our seats.
Although, Al opened the door to even more criticism with the Jan 1st deadline. I don't see that happening.
Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Dec 30, 2013 21:24:46 GMT -5
Actually, We are on the same page, I was being your satirical sidekick. Briwadd's spurious relationship between Al being right about the gcr being an indication or measure of his rightness about the trust is the old if A, then B fallacy. I thought you masterfully illustrated the distinction between correlation and probability. Mike Mike My bad Mike Mike! d*mn! Another hole! And I fell right through.
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Dec 30, 2013 22:03:41 GMT -5
Slow down guys, pace yourselves. You will have all of 2014 to debate this.
Save some energy for next years youltide "soon" .
God love ya Urban!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 3:30:21 GMT -5
Actually, We are on the same page, I was being your satirical sidekick. Briwadd's spurious relationship between Al being right about the gcr being an indication or measure of his rightness about the trust is the old if A, then B fallacy. I thought you masterfully illustrated the distinction between correlation and probability. Mike Mike My bad Mike Mike! d*mn! Another hole! And I fell right through. Well, I have a long history of falling through holes. At least it was a mink hole. They feel so much better than a rabbit hole. Hence my preference. Mike
|
|
|
Post by axis on Dec 31, 2013 6:31:33 GMT -5
Hodges updates..
In 2011: I am very pleased to be able to report that not only is Iraq now a sovereign country, but will have an internationally recognized and tradable currency by January 1, 2012. This indicates to me that distribution of the CMKM pay-outs is truly imminent - within hours/days.
In 2012: Again, I apologize for prematurely advising that the currency re-set was essentially finished on 12/31/11, and expressing my opinion that if any “… additional delays are encountered, …… they will be de minimus in both time and substance.
In 2013: I cannot guarantee when this will happen; what I can tell you is that it will be very soon. What does that mean? – It means that the Global Currency Reset into the new international, fully transparent, all digital, 1024 bit encrypted banking system will happen as soon as it is possible.
In 2013: Every indication from every credible source is that the Reset will become public today, tomorrow, the next day, or certainly by January 1, 2014. I cannot guarantee this of course, but it does represent my best opinion based on all available information.
What do you think ?
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Dec 31, 2013 7:00:44 GMT -5
LOL & Sigh
Are what I think.
I also think that if, and that's a BIG if, we EVER get anything from this stock..........
Mr Hodges' work would have nothing to do with it.
Maybe delayed it a bit?
Who knows?
meow
|
|
|
Post by skoondog on Dec 31, 2013 8:26:10 GMT -5
Hodges updates.. In 2011: I am very pleased to be able to report that not only is Iraq now a sovereign country, but will have an internationally recognized and tradable currency by January 1, 2012. This indicates to me that distribution of the CMKM pay-outs is truly imminent - within hours/days. In 2012: Again, I apologize for prematurely advising that the currency re-set was essentially finished on 12/31/11, and expressing my opinion that if any “… additional delays are encountered, …… they will be de minimus in both time and substance. In 2013: I cannot guarantee when this will happen; what I can tell you is that it will be very soon. What does that mean? – It means that the Global Currency Reset into the new international, fully transparent, all digital, 1024 bit encrypted banking system will happen as soon as it is possible. In 2013: Every indication from every credible source is that the Reset will become public today, tomorrow, the next day, or certainly by January 1, 2014. I cannot guarantee this of course, but it does represent my best opinion based on all available information. What do you think ? If I told you what I think, would it make a difference? I think the track record speaks for itself!!! But whats makes no sense is why?? How long can this kind of crap go on?? Who steps in to make it stop?? ANSWER: The shareholder.......... Skoondog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 8:34:24 GMT -5
As I stated before, one of the attributes of borderline personality disorder is the ability to confabulate on the fly. Some other attributes include dissociative thought, deceit, betrayal, failed relationships... to name a few
The case that Al used Bivens case law great. Now, was it: A. A total charade B. A galant effort to aid some 50,000 similarly situated victims C. A marketing campaign to pump cmkm shares D. All of the above E. None of the above
There are laws designed to protect human research subjects. Who was punished for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? It went on nearly forty years. There will be no one to punish for this one either, I am afraid.
Mike
|
|