Forum Replies Created

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    • Thu, May 21, 2020 - 10:55pm



      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: May 29 2013

      Posts: 42

      count placeholder1


    Hi Chris,

    In attempting to estimate what value the Public Forum might offer Peak Prosperity itself, it is a resource, not a service, in which IMO say 2% of posts would be relevant, and the remaining 98% would be irrelevant.  In this context, paying anybody to manage the irrelevant majority makes no business sense, so you don’t.  I get it.

    I note you drop by from time to time to data mine for that 2% gold, but waste none of your valuable time moderating for compliance with the “Forum Guidelines and Rules”, and you don’t.  I get that too.

    It follows that since you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it, and since it ain’t illegal unless you get caught, everybody (including yourself, as you prove) quite properly treats the “Forum Guidelines and Rules” as a joke.  Nothing but window dressing.  And quite naturally in this context, the scum of the Public Forum float to the top and cause harm with impunity.

    Good luck to Peak Prosperity if it thinks it avoids liability in negligence for causing these problems, merely by publishing this document and urging self moderation on users.  That merely escalates your company’s alleged liability for these harms, IMO, from non feasance to misfeasance, and one step closer to malfeasance towards your own members.

    Your site, your rules, your alleged negligence in acknowledging these risks of harm, and failing to act to prevent them, and therefor your partial liability for these harms, in my opinion, Chris.

    As that master of the “iron fist in the velvet glove”,  Count Machiavelli said ever so politely to the King of France:

    Sometimes doing nothing comes at a very high price indeed”.

    • Sat, May 16, 2020 - 05:12pm



      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: May 29 2013

      Posts: 42

      count placeholder0


    Love your work, AKGranny, but polite people say bull (brown word), or more correctly, bull excrement.  Them’s the Rules.

    I have fond imaginings of you as Peak Prosperity’s own Madame Du Farge, sitting knitting MAGA beanies and chuckling in front of Madame La Guillotine, and leaping to your feet shouting BULL####, and firing off a clip from your AK47 in the air, as the next hedge fund manager or merchant banker’s head rolls. (play the Marseillaise here)

    • Sat, May 16, 2020 - 01:12pm



      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: May 29 2013

      Posts: 42

      count placeholder0


    Bless your cotton socks, AKGranny, you’re far from alone there!  I’d say about 95% of people don’t get me.



    • Sat, May 16, 2020 - 12:42pm



      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: May 29 2013

      Posts: 42

      count placeholder2


    Alleged Vigilantism at Peak Prosperity in Breach of Rules and Guidelines

    The author:  wildtravel is a former consultant to Australia’s Local Governments in the establishment of the National Energy Market, the “Plant” in Belbin’s Team Roles, an MBTI “Visionary”, and a self described “junior league polymath”

    Guiding Principle

    Here’s my rule for pushing the boundaries of ‘acceptable thinking’; you can’t make silly mistakes when doing so. It gives your detractors both ammunition and an easy out.”

    Dr Chris Martenson, #238, Wed May o6, 2020, 5:46 pm

    Allegation: The vigilantes are in contravention of the rule on acceptable thinking and made silly mistakes in breach of PP Guidelines and Rules, as below

    Alleged Breaches of PP Guidelines

    Alleged Breaches of PP Rules


    Allegation: Wildtravel used the brown word in reference to a person’s opinion. Wildtravel cannot pretend to have clean hands in these matters.  At Wildtravel’s wedding it was considered impolite to hog the spliff, wear a tie, or admit to singing along with John Denver in the shower.

    Inappropriateness: profanity admitted and regretted


    • PP to consider publishing a list of unacceptable language, for instance brown, yellow and in and out words, wedding tackle words, intellectually challenged words, etc.
    • PP to consider publishing a list of acceptable facetious, sarcastic, and generally derogatory language, for instance “knuckledragger”, “black eye for you Stanford”, Luddite, Neanderthal,
    • PP to consider issuing a guideline regarding censoring of verbatim quotes, for instance in relation to that great sage Clint Eastwood “Opinions are like (censored anal sphincter word). Everybody has one.”


    Allegation: Snydeman is a vigilante. Snydeman is a person of self admitted and clearly documented bad character. Snydeman breached the following PP Rules:

    Ad hominem: Personal attacks
    “ fancy talking troll” “pig” “completely incomprehensible idiot”
    Illegality: Posts which are in violation of any law including California Civil Code section 45:
    For libel, which is written, the communication must expose plaintiff to … hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

    Further Legal Standards

    Malice of Forethought:
    I take on the task of taking trolls to task”. “I’ve been guilty of sparring with trolls”
    Lack of Remorse:
    Sometimes it is fun, though, and oh so easy.”


    • PP to consider inviting Snydeman to provide discovery of any, if any, Personal Messages sent and received in relation to my matters, and in relation to any, if any participation in the previous implied vigilantism agaInst another unknown party specified by Mohammed Mast below
    • Irrespective of Snydeman’s response on discovery, PP to consider if Snydeman’s membership of Peak Prosperity be terminated and that he be given written instructions never to return to PP again under any other alias.

    Mohammed Mast

    Allegation: Mohammed Mast is a vigilante. Mohammed Mast tells lies. He knows he possesses no authority from the PP community to represent them. Mohammed Mast threatens other bloggers.  More sinisterly, Mohammed Mast implies that he has employed these tactics successfully previously, and is in conspiracy with other members and/or PP to these ends. Mohammed Mast broke the following. PP Rules:

    Error: Posts containing information known to be false
    “This is not in ant (sic) way a threat, just some friendly advice.”
    Abuse:  Hateful, taunting, violent, or harassing posts
    “…if you wish to continue do not push the edges of the envelop.”
    “You may have noticed a certain prolific poster is MIA. That is not an accident.” (play twilight zone theme here)


    • Mohammed Mast be given formal notice by PP that if he gets caught telling lies again, his membership will be terminated,
    • Mohammed Mast be invited to offer discovery of any, if any, Personal Messages to other members in relation to my matters and the previous implied vigilantism,
    • Subject to any authority provided by Mohammed Mast, PP to consider identifying relevant Personal Messages, and publishing them on the site,
    • In the event Mohammed Mast declines to provide discovery, PP to give consideration if his his membership be terminated.

    The Enemy is Within

    Triggered Beliefs: Each of hold beliefs that we feel strongly about; that’s part of being human. Also part of being human is being vulnerable to having one or more of those beliefs triggered in a way that causes us to become emotionally-charged if a core belief is somehow threatened. When that happens, our limbic system often takes over our thinking and actions, pushing rationality aside. On this site, we expect each of us to self-monitor our emotional state and to take some time away from the keyboard if we experience ourselves becoming “too heated” in response to what we’re reading. A common pitfall we observe is that a triggered reader will insist that others not only respect — but share — their belief, and if that fails, will often demonize those holding a different perspective. Beliefs are subjective, and highly personal. You are absolutely entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want, but you are not permitted here to project them onto others.”

    Dr Chris Martenson, “Forum Rules and Guidelines”, “Operating Procedures”


    As the guiding principles Dr. Martenson enunciates above submittedly indicate, “Beliefs are subjective, and personal.” Quite so. But that’s only half the story. Submittedly, our beliefs, our core values, form part of our very identity. Is it any wonder many in the PP community experience challenges to their very personal beliefs as ad hominem attacks on themselves? “My truth” is synonymous with my identity.

    Alternatively, and hypothetically,  “The truth” (after Oliver Hume) is to be found in the objective, through evidence and logic and reason. I say hypothetcally because “The truth”, like the Zen koan of Total Quality Management, is that as you approach your goal, and answer questions with more questions, the goal posts recede further into the distance.

    In the awareness that the objective cannot be found subjectively, the scientific method takes great pains to exclude “My truth” in seeking “The truth”, in such as double blind, control group indexed experiments. Submittedly, and quite contrary to Dr. Martenson’s repeated claims, the Peak Prosperity public portal is not an evidence based organisation at all, with evidence’s enemy, “My truth” locked in mortal combat with the search for “The truth”. And submittedly playing some very dirty pool to give “The truth” the bum’s rush.

    Bearing in mind Peak Prosperity derives a substantial portion of it’s revenue stream from those who are quite unable to distinguish the subjective from the objective, between “My truth” and “The truth”, Peak Prosperity is submittedly fast becoming “Conspiracy Theory Central”. And, as a consequence, submittedly guaranteeing the public portal remains in a state of total war between intractable and irreconcilable enemies, and in submitted direct contradiction of Dr. Martenson’s claims and the integrity of Peak Prosperity itself.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. The boundary between “My truth” and “The truth”, the edges of the “envelop (sic)” which Mohammed Mast quite correctly sees me pushing, may be determined by asking three questions, and asking for one statement:

    Major premise?
    Minor premise?
    Statement of the Philosophy of Causation between the major premise and the conclusion drawn.

    If the conclusion drawn proves to be a logical fallacy, and therefore by definition is false, the reasoner self identifies as presenting “My truth” as “The truth”. Submittedly, such reasoning reasons backwards (i.e. subjectively)from the conclusion they wish to draw, to the premises from which such a conclusion might be drawn.

    In contrast if the reasoning is logically sound, then the conclusion drawn may submittedly be considered to be true, and present bona fide objective evidence with which to seek “The truth”. Once again submittedly, “My truth” presents “The truth” with no evidence whatsoever.


    • PP to consider if, in the absence of any discernible corporate vision or plan for the public forum beyond the edification and enjoyment of the PP community, that community has occupied that power vacuum and determined that Peak Prosperity can stick the corporate vision to become an evidence based organisation where the sun doesn’t shine
    • PP to consider if it might be in the company’s best interests to develop an operational plan for the public forum which might prevent the tail from further wagging the dog
    • PP to consider if the corporate vision might be better served by empowering “those best placed” (Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development – Kyoto Protocol) within its community (i.e. that small percentage who actually know what evidence and truth are) to better define, direct, filter and report quality assured public forum content in response to actionable intelligence revealed by Chris.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)