Regarding the Establishment of the Truth

[Clockwork]

It seems to me that the latest activity suggests an increasing interest in the Truth, the Subjective Truth, the Objectivism of the Truth, and the distinct differences between the Truth and the Untruth.

The existence of something in the physical realm might denote reality, whereas a fabrication is something that through similar paradigms is not congruent with reality, and that the neurological distance between these two phenomena and their successive interpretations in terms of conditional reality and feedback may denote significance.

The Truth can exist, and the Inverse of the Truth can exist. If these two are True, then they are considered the Truth. Any and all truthful inversions of the truth are also designated as the Truth.

The Truth is relevant, and the "inference" is the neurological process by which short-step justification for non-step logical processes occurs, meaning that the psychological process is one which - through the parameters established by Fringe Pioneer - would be tolerated. Furthermore, the inference here is responsible for establishing a systematic process through which the Truth - and more importantly: the Untruth - may be established; that also being an inference as to others inferring the Truth, and the glossary he has written in order to establish legitimacy on a non-contextual basis:

In this systematic attempt to define the absolution of the Truth as opposed to the False, it would be prudent of me to not define the idea of Agency, that being the sequential defining of the Truth with interest towards propagating certain feedback metabolisms responsible for conditional learning and motivation. For instance:

Over time, the truth changes. Sally no longer has a fish, because she tripped on a rock, fell, hit her knee, and dropped it in a wince of pain. As a result, her fish slid down the path and fell back into the river.

The inference here might manifest in a number of ways, but since this following passage isn't technically true, the psychological nature of falsehoods has come to play. Instead, the implication is that there is nothing the reader can do about Sally since they do not know who Sally is, nor how to physically assist her. Because of this, they immediately resign themselves to the inevitable nature of the falsehood, but willfully remain aware regarding the nature of falsehoods in case Sally herself turns out to be one - which in this case, she did.

The inference here is that the author has recently suffered some disappointment in his life, and in the absence of meaningful stimulus, has sought to render an interpretation on as little data as possible, that merely being the functional components of a systematic conditional process regarding the logical nature of the Truth, its inversions, and its fallacies - something that implies - - to this reader alone - that the original author tended to deal with the Untruth.

This author does not worry over the Definition of Truth, but merely feels burdened by its consequent exclusions.

[Clockwork]

Charlie Rose has been accused of making sexual advances towards eight different women, and has since had his career suspended due to his gross sexual behavior.

I hear eight is a lot. Eight different women are more women than one who had accidentally rolled an eighth might grope, so it's something I think about with care... because I wouldn't want to make the wrong decision.

And there's nothing wrong about asking for sex, or even committing to sex - unless the other person doesn't want to do it, and when someone turns me down, I'll sometimes go and ask another just for the hell of it. That's the benefit of not caring. Can you imagine flipping tails eight times?

To clarify, there's nothing gross and inappropriate about asking for sex once, or asking eight different women eight different times. The only wrongdoing here might be the actual groping, and whether continued advancements constituted harassment - which it surely did; let's not forget that Charlie Rose is a headline now, which means that his suspension is going to be used to push the media's ulterior agenda for the up-and-coming week, the same way Weinstein universally increased the level of scrutiny on purported sexual harassment.

Sacramento recently "cracked down" on criminal behavior, so it's a wonder that Charlie Rose hasn't sought amnesty; he will be gently diffusing around Sacramento for the next three weeks, but I'm sure some of his excuses will get caught in the computer networks of corporate high-rises before it comes around again.

[Clockwork]

Charles Manson died at the age of 83 in Bakersfield, California on November 19, 2017, approximately 10 days after a doppelganger cameo on American Horror Story.

To put it in perspective, his doppelganger cameo'd as him in American Horror Story 3 days before his birthday, 5 days before he was admitted to Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, and 10 days before he died.

[Qwerty]

Well, y'know, if there's anyone who nobody would mourn, it's Charles Manson.

[Skribbblie]

Bles DoNot DOublepost

[Clockwork]

Nov 22, 2017 15:47:52 GMT Qwerty said:

Well, y'know, if there's anyone who nobody would mourn, it's Charles Manson.

Exactly, but the details of his crime are unknown to me. From what I understand, he was convicted and charged with first-degree murder, despite not actually committing a murder.

I'm not typing that I enjoy the guy's company, that he didn't deserve to die, or that I support him in any way wholeheartedly; I merely find the details behind his ultimate demise a bit odd, because an official execution could have just as easily been done.

It is the moment when the system fails to account for justice that I feel unease, and I only felt unease when news of his death began to play on the television.

[Qwerty]

Maybe he just died because he was really old? That happens to a lot of people. If some conspiracy wanted him to die in prison, he would have died a long time ago. Why wait until he would naturally die of old age anyway?

And he was convicted of murder because he committed murder. You don't have to physically kill someone with your own hands to commit murder, you know. A cult is as effective a murder weapon as a gun.

[Clockwork]

Nov 23, 2017 14:05:33 GMT Qwerty said:

Maybe he just died because he was really old? That happens to a lot of people. If some conspiracy wanted him to die in prison, he would have died a long time ago. Why wait until he would naturally die of old age anyway?

And he was convicted of murder because he committed murder. You don't have to physically kill someone with your own hands to commit murder, you know. A cult is as effective a murder weapon as a gun.

Why indeed? He was serving consecutive life sentences, which tend to top out at twenty years, meaning he was serving decades of his life in prison after the court system convicted him of first-degree murder, meaning that he explicitly, intentionally, knowingly killed another human being, which is a crime people reserve for actual murderers.

Perhaps that may go to explain why greater men of greater crimes served less time after similar acts. People have committed actual murder and made it with their lives, and most of it after actually murdering someone in the first-degree, instead of merely convincing another to do it, which is distinctly different from actually murdering another human being.

I'm surprised an equivalent crime has yet to be defined. This is one situation where there should have been a fitting conviction, instead of one which was technically untrue. One journalist in recent memory wrote of a charge defined namely as "murder-by-proxy", constituting an appropriate charge to Charles Manson, despite the computative jargon from which the word "proxy" is derived from.

It's strange to see that human beings are seen as merely tools, intermediary entities which may serve as the basis for which a first-degree murder conviction is contested. That means that human interpretation and individual choice are not factors in invalidating such a conviction. These are the minds of sheep, not men.

Traditionally, such a cult would be convicted of murder, but only among the members of the cult which committed the murder, and Charles Manson would be - at least according to the details of the case, which occurred decades ago - faced with distinctly different charges, the nature of which I am unfamiliar with.

What's strange is that Adolf Hitler - a name which takes on more than just its person here - was often held responsible for millions of deaths, but the true number of fatalities attributed to Adolf Hitler is much, much lower, for he was not the man between their death and their salvation. Those lucky men were mostly German nationals.

In much the same way, the individuality which separates most of us as good samaritans failed to differentiate the crimes committed by Charles Manson and his followers, because his followers and their crimes were technically considered his fault by the court, and thus he assumed full responsibility for their wrongdoings, in much the same way Adolf Hitler may have been held responsible worldwide for genocide, even though he was largely uninvolved in most of the systematic death which occurred in the Holocaust.

This is not - I repeat, not - an argument for Charles Manson's innocence, but an observation as to the legally-inconsistent nature of his prosecution and subsequent conviction.

I assume the establishment of hierarchical authority and marshall law constitutes the disestablishment of holding the individual accountable for heinous acts, but it is my belief that the actual murderers behind any case recognized by a court be charged to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes, instead of that charge being, in any way, deferred to another. I would have rather the Nazi Party been held accountable for the Holocaust, and its members responsible for the systematic death as opposed to just one man, and that's what actually occurred militarily since Nazi Germany was at war with the Allies during World War II. Even at the unturning of the 20th century, human beings recognized that its the Individual that makes the right choices and the wrong ones, and Manson's conviction implies - at least to me, initially - that the actual murderers received diminished convictions.

Fortunately, however, that does not seem to be the case. Tex Watson, the man responsible for carrying out the Manson murders by instruction, was convicted of seven counts of first-degree murder, was denied parole seventeen times, and is currently imprisoned in San Diego, California. It appears that justice is not an additive process, but rather a process of retribution. The validity of this information is suspect, however, because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) makes no claim, implicit or explicit, that the information heretofore obtained is true.



Regarding the Rules of Inference: The data used to compile this post is potentially incorrect, and the inference here manifested as me assuming an implication was made due to the content of secondary-source material on a forty-five year old criminal conviction and not on source material, AND that inference was ultimately subconscious and purportedly incorrect, since all available data suggests both Tex Watson and Charles Manson were denied parole over more than forty years for the same set of murders, a fate most would agree is appropriate. The inference, therefore, manifested entirely out of a confliction regarding the nature of criminal prosecution and its precision, and the difference between committing a murder and instructing one to murder.

The difference in symbolism and legality is significant, and the rules established by Fringe Pioneer in no way apply to legal semantics. My review of his postulates and my subsequent application merely serve to validate the congruent nature of logic in regards to those two fields: symbolism and legality, and any inferences which may or may not be correct regarding either of them

Disclaimer: Charles Manson was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder, a criminal offense in which he instructed Tex Watson, a member of his California Commune to murder a pregnant Sharon Tate and six others. His involvement in the murders constituted first-degree murder in California.