BBC article demonstrating Pecunidigm

Thankfully as you can now plainly notice, the logical error of a pecunidigm in action…

You will of course start to see so many of these logic (manipulation) errors
now that you can see them so effortlessly.

Rebuttals and Responses:

Thankfully, our pecunidigm offender “Carl Gardiner” states;
“It’s the equivalent of thinking Harry Potter is science.”
[as if it’s some form of intelligent rebuttal]

Very interesting Carl Gardiner, so when you talked with J.K. Rowling as a writer, (I am assuming you did)  did you ask of her research approach, and of her strategic writing methods,  as it was a very well written set of documents, (and subsequent movies) and the sales would attest to the fact that they being VERY popular, as the most obvious proof of the somewhat and almost scientific approach she took to write the Harry Potter series.

You are not even the bit slighte$t jealou$ in any way are you Carl? LOL.

Actually there would be many who would argue perhaps, that alchemy (the father of science) and modern practical magic are definitely scientific in their evidence procurement. Practical Sciences, Testing, Proving and then Repeating… Also why would you use “Science” as a rebuttal for LEGAL, when we all (most) know that “Legality is NOT REALITY”.

The truth of proof, literally being in the magic pudding, as you eat it as it were!

Further down the article we have:

Of “Legal Name Frauds” popularity in gaining attention to the tune of “Regardless of who funded… the campaign… has won attention for a hitherto fringe theory.”

Whereby another Pecunidigm offender being a certain Jack in the Box… “David Allen Green, the legal commentator and solicitor at Preiskel & Co LLP” goes on to show that it may in fact be infringing on their potential lucrative gravy train income… Comments from this Jack who is not even a Jack, [perhaps demonstrating he knows something there after all… LOL.] “who blogs as Jack of Kent, says it is “complete tosh” and warns people against relying on it in court.

He adds: “It is nothing about law, and it is not harmless.”

Hey David you are so right there,, it is NOT HARMLESS at all, being very harmful, and deathly in-fact, being the legal name as in joinder is having one accept and consent that the “LEGAL NAME” and ones “flesh and blood, mind-body-spirit-complex being” are one and the same, and therefore LEGALLY DEAD!

DAVID: You are SO right, “NOT HARMLESS” at all!

Also note the legal term “PERSON”

DAVID [Jack in the box…paradigm box?] perhaps you missed something in the (your study) translation obviously, or perhaps you just cannot or will not see it (or at least admit in public) for some particular reason! ?$? Pecunidigm maybe $?$

David ( you go on to be quoted as saying “Taking this daftness seriously can be legally dangerous. If people try to use such things to avoid their legal obligations they can end up with county court judgments or even criminal convictions.” Yes that is the point exactly, automatically the LEGAL NAME IS GUILTY and not just be for being joined to a fraudulent user (and sadly mostly unknowingly consented as joined), the flesh and blood being!

It is certainly LEGALLY very dangerous, but is $$$,$SO in your (etal) favour David!

And you are further are quoted as saying:
“You may as well walk into court
with a t-shirt saying
‘I am an idiot’.”

Brilliant David ( and that leads to another truth,
quite magically thank you David for pointing this little gem out,
David you are certainly not a proper IDIOT! (perhaps).

Please do you research and refer to :

  1. 114 – Karl Lentz – Definition: Idiot. Do i want to be an idiot?
  2. Karl Lentz 57 – An incompetent, or idiot bares no liability

REMEMBER: You are a beauty beyond measure!


p style=”text-align: center;”>Thank you all; Jon, Carl and David (a.k.a. Jack in the box) Namaste, you partners in contrast, you!

Have you listened to Kate yet, or what...? A quick heads up and just a warning: read a lot before you ask questions... Oh and did I say READ LOTS first, You have been warned!