12 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-18 0040 +cabadejo

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-18 0040 +cabadejo
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/6YSxM5BZG4C
https://pastebin.com/UCh12FZB
__


+cabadejo __ This is a long and important message.

You wrote: *_"As he scrolls up the video picture covered the youtube search bar - this does not happen on my computer."_*

Good. You have found an "oddity" or "anomaly". This is dismissed and disregarded by "normal people" because they trust that "Peekay" would not lie to them. Because they believe it is real they do not even notice or they quietly "suppress the doubt".

But you are not belief-controlled by "Peekay" so you are able to examine the "oddity" as a "genuine skeptic" and evaluate whether it is something or nothing. If it is nothing you are able to discard it and move on. If it is something you will pursue it.

With any event or claim there may be any number of "oddities" or "anomalies". We must always locate the most damaging one which becomes our "weakest link". How to rank these in terms of value or importance? We use a "binary value system" - something has a value of either "1" or "0". If it is something "normal people" can dismiss then it has a value of "0" (even if it is damaging - it is of no use if it cannot be presented to "normal people" - this is why we must always avoid "superstitious explanations" - even if they are correct - when presenting something to "normal people").

If it is something that does not give us justification to doubt an "event" or "claim" (or piece of "evidence") then it too must be given a value of "0".

If something cannot be denied by "normal people" and it gives us the ability to reasonably doubt a "claim" or "event" or "evidence" then it has a value of 1.

How many do we need? Just one. The first one we come across will do though if you have time and you can be bothered - find the best possible one. But all we need is just one - and that is all we must use. This becomes our "weakest link".

Once you have identified the weakest link you must latch onto it and apply pressure to kill. You must not relax or ease up just because you happen to feel bad for the other person. It does not matter if that person has been nice to you in the past. It does not matter if that person does 99% good work. Do you let a murderer walk just because he feeds the homeless? Do you allow a r4pist to walk just because he gives blankets to the homeless?

No. We are in a lie system and we have just one enemy - liars. Any feeling of pity or "mercy" that you may feel arises from your conscience which is something that the other person does not have. That feeling is what separates you from "them". We are dealing with something that resembles a human but it is a human-looking parasite.

*If you do this right you can potentially break the "fascination" that person has had over his or her victims.*

To do what needs to be done you must always do this right.

Although I suggested several flaws to you I had hoped you would notice the oddity with the video scroll. It is something that cannot be denied - it really does happen. And it is something that makes it reasonable to doubt the claim (as I will explain below). And so it has a "value of 1" and that is all we need to continue.

We have found a "weakest link" and with it we can deliver a "death blow" and enjoy a meal.

The way his video "pokes up at the top" is something "normal people" cannot deny. Even if they are in denial - they cannot deny it happens. A belief controlled person will not notice it or disregard it (such as an artifact of his screen-recording software). *But we are not belief controlled - **_and we know better._*

And try as much as they want with their own computer and other browsers those who "Peekay" has belief controlled will not be able to reproduce the problem. The problem simply cannot be denied by honest people. (Anyone who rejects what is being pointed out is either under "Peekay's" spell or is dishonest. It is generally safe to assume that the person is dishonest but that's a different matter.)

And so the next step is to confirm that the *"video scroll oddity" is really happening* and not merely some "peculiarity" that is happening with "Peekay's" evidently garbage XP computer system.

The way to do that is just like with the "ISS masking glitches" - *we must find a "known good example" and compare.*

What we want is something that has been screen-recorded by "Peekay" in the same (or similar) way *where he scrolls down the video so we can observe what happens.*

When "Peekay" scrolls down in the "known good" video we can observe whether the video "sticks out at the top" like it does in the "community violation" video or whether it behaves "nominally" - as we would ordinarily expect.

If the video sticks up just as we saw it doing in the "community violation" video then we can accept it is a "peculiarity" of "Peekay's" garbage XP system (the "anomaly" is given a value of "0") and move on to examine either a different oddity or give up on this particular meal and see what else there is to eat.

If the video in the "known good example" scrolls as we would expect (i.e., differently) *then we have found a contradiction to the claim* and we become justified in expressing rational doubt. The oddity or anomaly has a value of "1" and we are well on our way to having a good feed.

To complete this *mandatory* step we simply go to "Peekay's" recently uploaded videos. We look for one that has been screen-recorded in a similar way (may I suggest his video with the title: *"Truth Bomb Hits Boston Fraud Rebekah Gregory"* as that is recent and resembles the same "YouTube video display").

Now advance through that video until he scrolls down a little. *Observe what happens.*

Does the same phenomenon happen?

*Compare both.*

If there is indeed a difference it becomes imperative to *DOUBLE CHECK!*

I cannot stress this enough: *at this stage any mistake on our part is fatal to us.* It is the equivalent of the prey managing to wriggle free and catch a lucky bite that kills us. In this *game* if we accuse someone in public of *outright deceit* but are wrong about it *then we must retire.* All we have is our word and if we are wrong then our word has no value. Although the other person may not leave when found guilty - if we are wrong must leave. We have honour that they don't. Just as we have a conscience that they don't. If we are wrong then our word is worthless. *We must make NO mistakes.*

If you have any doubt or hesitation then you must first consult with someone else or give up that meal. No mistakes.

Once you have checked and rechecked and the oddity *really is there* and it *cannot be denied* and it really does make it reasonable to doubt the claim - AND YOU HAVE NOT MADE A MISTAKE - *then you have identified the "weakest link" that can be presented to "normal people"* so as to deliver the death blow.

To do what we are doing we are looking for something that cannot be denied. Like with the "Nepal earthquake" a simple watch face. Like with the alleged "ISS" - simple "masking glitches". Dishonest people will dismiss them as "trivial" and "insignificant" and "moot points". But they would do that even if we showed them an "ISS" movie set. *The opinion of dishonest people is much like the opinion of stupid people - **_it just never matters._*

The "weakest link" - with a binary value of "1" is something that even if it is ignored by a "normal person" at least cannot be denied by that "normal person".

Once you have that - *_the weakest link_* - it becomes reasonable to call BS on the claim itself (as I have done in my post above).

(There is more to what I am describing - _this can only be the basics_ - there are reasons why I wrote the various "taunts" that I did and reasons why I stated a "purpose" to his deceit. These things have already beared fruit but my reasons are beyond the scope of this message.)

Remember - *at all times "Peekay" is the one who is making a claim.*

*Has "Peekay" given us "sufficient proof" for this claim or has he instead given us only proof's appearances?*

He has given us "proof's appearances". Would an honest person EVER give us "proof's appearances" instead of genuine proof? _No - they would not._ Not ever.


__

>>> *An honest person does not ever hesitate to supply genuine proof to anyone who politely requests it. An honest person is always quick to admit an error and learn from it. An honest person upon realising an error has been made always seeks to right his or her wrongs before learning and adapting so as to avoid repeating that mistake. An honest person - where possible - helps others to avoid that mistake. How much further would we all be if there were just a few more honest people?* <<<

__


"Peekay" has presented us with proof's appearances. *The reason he has done so is either because he is carrying out a mini-lie system OR he is lying about his claim (or both).*

(As I write - the answer can sometimes be both. In this case - we can accept he is simply lying about the claim. However his audience *feels* upon hearing about and believing his deception is typically the intent behind his lie.)

Of course - the absence of sufficient proof does not mean the claim is false. Then again - honest people making honest claims have no need to lie or exaggerate or misrepresent themselves. *It is by accusing "Peekay" of lying it outright forces him to either provide sufficient proof for his claim or admit he has lied.* The reason we call something BS is to force the other to provide sufficient proof. If they do not provide sufficient proof then the audience's belief is not justified.

Aside: It is always possible a person might receive a genuine "community violation" but present the strike to his or her audience in a fake way. The reason for doing so might be because that person is carrying out a mini-lie system. (I.e., they could show genuine proof if they must but in the absence of being forced they are choosing not to. They are forcing their audience to believe wholly on trust and proof's appearances. This is a mini-lie system. In this case - even though the person isn't "technically" lying - honest people do not do that. Giving only proof's appearances is to prey on an audience's trust etc.)


__


*We are now in a position to rationally reject "Peekay's" claim.*

As I have mentioned - the most important thing is to focus on a *single incriminating contradictory detail* that cannot be denied (the "weakest link").

Equally important is to not introduce any more details. They are not necessary. They serve as distractions. *Nothing further is required.* It is always a mistake to add more than just the one single thing that makes it reasonable for an audience to doubt. This aspect is largely misunderstood. Many people feel a need to "pack in as many details as possible".

One must never post a video pointing out "fifty reasons why 'Peekay' lied". Rather - a simple video showing just *one* reason is all that's needed and will be more effective and must always be preferred (so long as you have found the weakest link).


__


And so do not introduce unnecessary details. And do not introduce any irrelevancies! Additional details serve only to distract from the weakest link. If you present "ten reasons" then the other person has an opportunity to attack the weakest reason of your ten. Do not give the adversary such an opportunity!

*Focus exclusively on the weakest link.* Imagine a spider having tightly bound the prey so that it simply cannot move. Now it can sink its fangs into the prey and leisurely suckle out the rejuvenating nutrients.

The prey has fallen onto your web. A single contradictory detail is what paralyses the prey. There may be some "death throes" which will present in the form of abuse - accusations of lying - attempted character assassination _and so forth._

*These death throes are what make such meals taste all the more yummy.*

We were all born into a lie system. The lie system rubs off on otherwise good people and makes liars and emotional manipulators out of them. This is unsustainable and must change. It changes when enough people are hunting down liars and making meals out of them. _Teach a man to fish and all that._




__________________________________________
Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg

Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1

Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w