Can I also remind you that:
your latest 'theory' has resulted in a young girl who's already been through one traumatic event getting stalked by grown men

this nonsense isn't harmless

I'm not sure how to take this post.

Why do you call this my latest theory when sandy hook is something that I've known about for several years? Why do you call it my theory when you know that many others have done all of the actual work?

Your latest theory as in you apparently only came across this Superbowl thing last night? So it's the latest mad theory you've presented.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, let's get to this.

I see. I do find the pictures compelling and the fact that they would put them in the super bowl actually fits with my worldview, but your reaction is expected.

I wonder though why you think the crisis actors guild is a neutral third party to provide debunking or why you would trust anything that doesn't show the work.

The facial recognition expert doesn't even say who she is talking about ffs in their correspondence.

He quite literally showed the work by posting the email, and understandably doesn't want to circulate more photos of a girl who has been stalked by adult nutjobs.

I will bet you any amount of money you want that if you email the facial recognition expert and ask them to confirm that they did review the photos and send that email then they will confirm it.

Shouldn't they at least say which girl is being discussed?

Why do you find the crisis actors guild a neutral third party and is it disconcerting to you in any way that you are using them as a source?*

*I mean I don't think it has to mean anything but it should put you off at least a little. Especially given the lack of actual pictures shown on the Web page and the fact that we don't even know who the expert is talking about.

don't see how she's chosen to word the email has the slightest bit of relevance

if you want to keep alleging he's somehow misled the expert, feel free to email her

I'm sure plenty of conspiracy theorists already have.
you're sourcing from conspiracy websites, I'm sourcing from anti-conspiracy websites

it's a bit rich of you to call my sources biased here

maybe let's focus on the actual evidence presented

which is, on your side, some photos of kids that look vaguely similar (which is apparently 'compelling')

on my side, that children looking vaguely similar isn't really proof of anything, particularly when some of them will be siblings of the children who died, the fact that plenty of them don't actually look all that alike, the facial recognition expert saying that two of them definitely aren't the same, and the fact that this whole suggestion is utterly crazy

so like I said, I'd much rather we focused on discussing what you feel the crucial pieces of evidence are that point to Sandy Hook, specifically, being a cover up

because I don't think you'd claim this is one of your key bits of evidence, so let's not waste time on it

One point that I should make is that some of them are alleged to be siblings.

sorry, what is your point there?

oh who cares

look, is this one of your key bits of evidence? one of the things you'd point to as one of the, say, five strongest indicators that Sandy Hook was a hoax?

if not, can we move onto those?

It speaks for itself. That some of the children are the supposed children killed, and that some of them are apparently their siblings.

That is going to require a long post with me getting on my comp. This is going to take time but I'm going to try to be quick

that's fine

in the interim, I'm going to open up another political question I've been mulling for a while:

boiled down to its fundamentals, regulation should only really have three main purposes:

1. to account for externalities
2. to reduce transactional costs
3. where transactional costs cannot be practically reduced to a reasonable level, to ensure that the resulting market failure is not exploited

note that under transactional costs I'm including all costs involved in a transaction, including the cost of making the choice itself

I can't think of anything obvious that this definition misses, but I'd be interested to hear if you think there's anything that I've not covered.

externalities and transaction costs are two fairly broad categories

what regulations would not satisfy any of those 3 criteria?

capital gains in the US are only taxed when the underlying capital is sold afaiu (I don't practice tax or estate law)

an intervivos transfer is not a sale, so it's not taxed



to tax a transfer of an asset, rather than a sale, raises some interesting issues of liquidity, and I wonder how/whether these issues are borne out in the respective markets of Britain and the US

So are you saying that those kids that were killed didn't actually have siblings that could possibly look like them or

No. That is not what I am saying.

Can someone PM me when we're done with the Sandy Hook bull****? I prefer the other bull****.

Sorry wn.

So what's your point on it then?


Do you also think Keanu Reeves is immortal?

http://keanuisimmortal.com/

They're intended to be broad, and I think they should capture all regulations, but would be interested if there are any I've missed. I'm quite interested in the theoretical justification of regulation.

You're saying that some of the children killed didn't actually have siblings but it was made to seem that they did yes?

I assume all birth certificates and anything else showing that wrong is faked iyo?

The issue with not taxing the transfer is that the capital gain of the individual to whom the asset is transferred is then calculated based on its value at transfer.

Therefore creating potential for a massive untaxed gain.

No not at all. I haven't gotten into the documentation but there isn't a lot out there. No matter what it will never make a strong argument.

My only point about the siblings is that it is alleged by the conspiracy theorists that some of the children who preformed at the super bowl are actual siblings who preformed with their supposedly dead sibling.

Bloobird had made the point that some could be siblings. And I am saying that that is indeed what the allegation is, just that they are not all siblings.

And some could be non related too. They used 26 kids. No names released. I don't fully endorse all of this. Some might be wrong. I do think enough are solid enough to deserve a good look.

picture of children and names removed because I see no reason to leave it