To start with, this “critique” was not rebutted, or commented on, with consideration. It was not because I couldn’t rebut it. It was decided that rebutting would accomplish nothing. Since this is the second time that this was sent to me, and ‘someone(s)’ is ‘calling us out’ as if we cannot respond to this, you will now get ‘your rebuttal’ that you so desperately ‘need’. At the end of ‘your rebuttal’, you can decide what it actually accomplishes, and maybe (or not) see why there was no response to this “critique”
Since this is a ‘rebuttal’, I will follow the ‘format’ already set, and comment on these “solid criticisms”. There is nothing personal in this rebuttal against the writer nor anyone who follows him or believes as he does…I’ve been through ‘the fire’ and back again, and heard and read, and seen, and experienced ‘criticisms’ beyond this…
The “critique” starts out be saying, “Please be aware that what I have to say is nothing personal against Josh del Sol or anyone else featured in the youtube. I have no personal grudges or axes to grind. But I do have a working BS detector.”
“ax to grind”
Cambridge Dictionary: to have a strong personal opinion about something that you want people to accept and that is the reason why you do something:
Webster’s Dictionary: working for an ulterior purpose or toward a selfish end
Does the author of the “critique” get paid or receive any benefit including, money, notoriety, a sense of purpose, from his current position as a “smart meter activist leader”?? Although the results from method(s) of his approach, were not mentioned in the “critique”, and the results will undoubtedly speak for themselves, BUT, if the answer is yes to the above question, then the Inpower approach, would at least jeopardize the alleged benefits, and there would be the distinct possibility of “axes to grind”
“working BS detector” will be rebutted later as it is more appropriate in ‘your rebuttal’
The “critique” gets off to a bad start as the first ‘accusation’ is:
“The video gets off to a bad start when Cal Washington makes the point that one of the basic InPower premises is that, by switching to smart meters (SMs), the utility has changed the contract they have with you. That’s both right and wrong. Technically he is right because what they have installed is not a meter. It’s a transceiver and computer.”
The writer of the “critique”, then starts talking at length about himself. So much so that he never addresses where I was wrong in my alleged statement “the utility has changed the contract they have with you”.
There are those that are adept at deceptive writings that use distractions like that and it is done with forethought and purpose, and I came across it extensively when I studied statutory acts.
I have no idea if the writer of the “critique” knew what he was doing, or if he just got lost talking about himself, but it brings up at least two issues. 1. I cannot rebut something when it’s not stated, other than “That’s both right and wrong” 2. Because the “critique of Inpower” from the start, went on and on about the writer of the “critique”, and or his opinions, instead of Inpower, and where the statement was wrong, it adds more credence to the “axes to grind” as per the definition(s) above.
The next paragraph talks about Kevin Lynch.
Mr. Lynch left on the day that he got his Notice of Default, not the Notice of Liability, so it was the third document in the process. In actual fact it was not called a “Notice of Liability”, but was a document that used principles, and wording that then became “The Notice of Liability” that is now in question, as these events predate the current Smart Meter NoL.
There is no ‘evil intent’ on parts being “greyed out”. This is just ‘video editing’ in order that the un-greyed out parts stand out in a video that is trying to convey a ‘story’ that is VERY involved in a short period of time. Because the intent of the video is to present a very complex story and a large amount of information, the editing was done this way. To have the whole article scrolling down, in a video would cause most to stop watching it. Thus the statement in the “critique”: “Now this is something we will see throughout the YouTube: A news article is put on screen (11:17) and most of it is greyed out, with what Josh wants to emphasize lightened up and highlighted”, is designed to make the editing seem as though there is something nefarious going on, but does not prove that this is the case.
The video Episode 1, touches on events that I experienced, but could not possibly go into detail, or even mention all of the experiences in a short video.
When I sent the process to Mr. Lynch, I was NOT expecting what happened. I was as shocked as some of the authors of other articles that were issued at the time. Yes, there were more articles than what was presented in Episode 1. One such article, had said that Mr. Lynch did his usual press conference, in the morning and made no mention of ‘retiring that day’. The mail was sent by Canada Post Registered, and the date AND TIME OF DAY of delivery were tracked. The Default (3rd document in a series) was delivered at around 11:00 am, after the press conference. He quit in the afternoon. One article said “That it would have to be something vicious to make a man as savvy as Kevin Lynch to leave without notice”, and then the article went on ‘speculating’ what that might have been. This now brings up the “working BS detector” issue of this “critique”. The writer would have everyone believe that the newspaper and other “media” in ALL of the cases that I am accused of “BS’ing”, are telling the TRUTH about the events in question. Most reading the “critique” and this rebuttal, would have to believe that fact as well. That the story in the “greyed out” area was the actual truth, and that the media NEVER TELLS UNTRUTHS. Most reading this, know that that is NOT a fact, and that the media does tell untruths, so then they would have to believe that the media tells lies, EXCEPT in the case(s) when it is ANY of the media stories that have to do with me or Inpower. Then the ‘official’ story is true.
Someone who claims to have a”working BS detector”, would know that….IF…..what I’m telling is the actual truth, and that Kevin Lynch, and the MANY others, actually left because of paperwork they received from me, it would NOT appear in the media as such. This scenario and similar ones, happened many more times than what was presented in Episode 1. And in actual fact some media stories, and websites have “disappeared” after the fact. I realize that I open myself up to another “critique” because it can be said that the articles “conveniently disappeared”, and it will be alluded that they never existed. Which brings up the point of why this was not rebutted in the first place. No matter what I say, ANYONE who doesn’t want to believe it, will not, and there will be no level of proving that will satisfy.
The amount of “coincidental” behaviors based on documents that I sent, is overwhelming. The only ones that I have ever considered as being cause and effect, were the ones where it was the same day. There were many instances where it was within two or three days and these I considered high probability, and may or may not mention them depending on the context. There were also many instances where it was two weeks, and I rarely mention those, due to a lower probability. There was one case of the Provost Marshall who “stepped down” a month after Kevin Lynch, (They received mail the same day) BUT he had recently been appointed, and had worked his whole career to achieve it, and did not appear to be of an age of retirement by his photo. (mid 40’s), so he may (or may not) have given a month’s notice. Those are the facts, the reader can decide if it was cause and effect.
The fact is, there are too many coincidences, (more than in the video) for there not to be a cause and effect, and of course the media, is NOT going to publish ANY of this. For the “critique” to say: “Drawing a false cause and effect relationship between Notices sent and people resigning or not seeking re-election. What we should be looking at is if policy changes, not if someone resigns or does not seek re-election”, is again misleading and accusatory, at worst, and is a statement made without the full scope of the mathematical probabilities, at best. What is not mentioned in the “critique” is the “policy changes” that the writer has experienced, or ANY positive ‘event’, and as he talked about himself previously, if there was something, he certainly would have mentioned what “he” has done, as a stark comparison to “resigns or does not seek re-election”.
Although it may seem that isolated people stepping down is ineffective, one should look at it as a ‘crack in the dam’ and yes, at this point ‘they’ can fill the crack, but if the tactic were to be duplicated at a high rate or volume, then it would make sense that filling the cracks would become much harder, and if we can create the cracks faster than ‘they’ can fix them, then the cracks themselves will begin to spread on their own and create a full breach.
In the case of Kevin Falcon, he was faxed a document in the evening after business hours. He stepped down as Finance Minister early the next morning. (another coincidence). Others stepped down from their cabinet posts later in the day. and many more “were not seeking re-election” a few days later. This is the type of thing that can happen. After these events, the Notary Society, sent out notices to ALL notaries in the province that they were not allowed to notarize what were called “quasi-legal documents” (another coincidence).
I had apparently found the “Risk Management” dept. as well. I got the date stamp at the city hall “Risk Management”, because someone had told me that he believed it was “Risk Management” for all government agents. I was skeptical, but like all of my experiences, I WAS OPEN MINDED, to find the TRUTH, and willing to experiment (scientific method) to arrive at the TRUTH.
I got the stamp and sent it to Kevin Falcon that night. There were things said within the documents alluding to there being no British North America Act as well (another story). The “Risk Management” office was in an annex, half a block away from City Hall, and when I went in there, EVERYTHING about it looked incorrect, and we actually got back in the elevator because I could NOT BELIEVE IT. I got a ‘check in my spirit’ to go back up. I did. Long story longer (can’t possibly put it in an introductory video), after the Kevin Falcon “coincidence” (and others), the next time I went into “Risk Management” the lady said ” I was told not to stamp anything more…” I insisted. She phoned someone and whoever was on the phone asked “Is it a claim??” my answer was “It’s a potential claim”. she was told to “stamp it”. After this document was sent, the “Risk Management” office in the annex was closed, and it was moved to City Hall proper. (another coincidence)
There’s even MORE to this story, but it cannot be conveyed even here let alone an introductory video. (so there are even more coincidences to this story), and this is JUST ONE STORY…about Kevin Falcon. which brings up from the “critique”: “What else would they be expecting together? A new car? Cancer? A Notice of Demand? I don’t think so. People resign all the time for family changes”.
This is a tactic using sarcasm or ridicule as a way to discredit.
At no time did I say “A new car”, “Cancer”, or “A Notice of Demand”. The reader is led to emotionally attach the sarcastic remarks to me and or Inpower, and or the Notice of Liability process.
Kevin Falcon was indeed expecting a child and that was the “media story”. That he stepped down for that reason. Apparently the “working BS detector”, didn’t go off, so I’m assuming it is because the media ALWAYS tells the truth, or the media lies EXCEPT when it has anything to do with me or Inpower. Just to add more to the story, it was Kevin Falcon’s second child, and he didn’t “step down” or “not seek re-election” for his first child. He even ran for party leader, which would be accelerating political aspirations, not ‘winding down’. He literally could have been the premier at the time as he narrlowly lost the leadership vote. The readers here can derive whatever they want from that, but that is the truth. …the writer of the “critique” left out that it was a second child, and that Falcon had run for party leader before the prior election.
As far as the effectiveness and the”critique” saying” People did not seek reelection and a couple of people resigned but did policy change? No. And BTW, people resign and don’t seek reelection all the time”,
One can look closer at some of these people,and or their PAST policies, and realize that some ‘policies’ that WOULD have come in the future will not now be coming, or will be slower in coming due to the ‘groomed person’ not being in the office that could implement it. There are ‘world domination’ organizations who have placed people in certain positions, because they are ‘insiders’, and therefore removal of these ‘groomed insiders’ is a viable tactic to stalling agendas, and with enough people doing the tactic, stopping them.
Just to be clear, all of the examples from Episode 1, were the case of “unexpected step down on the same day that they received mail”
There were others that were not included that were ‘same day’, and others shortly after receiving mail. There were also many “behaviors” in courtrooms that ‘coincided’ with my change in tactic from the more ‘traditional’ methods not unlike what the writer is proposing. My ‘results’ from that traditional (conditioned/trained) method(s) were, most likely what the writer of the “critique” is currently experiencing. The results from methods based on ‘commerce’, were vastly in my favor, and therefore I continued on that path, until they now leave me alone. It was just simple trial and error, and then stop doing what doesn’t work and try something else until something DOES work. I argued statutes in ‘court’, had the better argument, and still lost, over and over….I stopped doing that, and NEVER will again…but I don’t publicly criticize those that are still ‘trying’ that or a similar ‘traditional’ method… The results will speak for themselves…
Although technically, these could ALL be coincidences, it’s statistically highly unlikely that there is not a correlation. The chances of so many “coincidences” happening and there being absolutely no cause and effect would be astronomical.
It would be like saying at a mass shooting, “They all died of natural causes just prior to the bullet hitting them. People die all the time”. Although this is a possibility, it is highly unlikely, and of course can be verified by a truthful investigation. But when one relies on the “media” as the source of a truthful investigation, then in my opinion, and I have nothing against anyone, but their “working BS detector”, may need to be adjusted…
I have spent as much time as I feel necessary to give the rebuttal that was so adamantly sought.
I could continue….
But what does it accomplish???
Will the writer of the “critique” suddenly change his mind about Inpower???
Maybe…it would be nice, and he would DEFINITELY be welcome, but I really doubt it.
So those that were adamantly seeking a rebuttal, maybe (or not) you see why I CHOSE not to do so…
Not because I couldn’t…
But you got what you wanted…maybe not a full point by point rebuttal, but enough to see what it accomplishes…
Division is is not effective…
I truly hope that this was helpful, and that we can ALL learn from it…