Aren't many left.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
While I understand what you're saying, indeed, the very valid point you make here, there is this other thing that goes on in a human brain. That often - often - hijacks thought processing which can - and is shown time and again to do - color/spin/distort/re-frame/whatever word - accurate evaluation of data. This is one of the contributing reasons why social/theistic/political/moral/ethical ideology can have perfectly sane highly intelligent non-naive non-gullible non-buffoon persons fighting, sometimes to their death, in support of something that absolutely makes no sense to another person(s).
Belief.
Belief is an unconscious mental process. Belief directs the brain to seek confirmation-bias when interpreting data. Has little ever to do with intelligence. And is a built-in human brain function. Unfortunately so in many cases. Often when a brain, a person, has a deep seated Belief, facts have little-to-no power. Facts can be unconsciously spun to have little/no/much/etc. validity or merit. Leading logic to unconsciously prove/disprove almost anything depending on the belief and the strength of that belief. Now of course this is not something that can never change or be re-evaluated by a human with deeply held beliefs, but during the time a human is interpreting data while also having a deep seated belief, all bets are off the table for accuracy in interpreting data. Facts are "puny" compared to Belief.
This is shown to be common. All persons. We all work from a set of beliefs. Or I guess we would be computers putting together data with no interpretation of data other than data. You know, like Data.
But Belief carries sway even to the extreme point of cognitive-dissonance when accurate interpretations begin to be recognized by the brain while an opposite Belief is still in play:
"Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried. Still I look to find a reason to believe." --song 'Reason To Believe'
Therefore, for me I mean, I 'know' these new facts, this data, are going to be spun by supporter/advocates who have an Agenda for this production and damn the facts. But there will also be the supporter/advocates who have (various levels of) Belief attached to this production who will be unconsciously interpreting and using confirmation-bias to make this new information fit within their current seated beliefs.
This second group is not by category populated with damaged persons, it is populated with humans. Whom, 'I believe', (<--
) should not be disparaged but instead keep leading that metaphorical horse to water (facts) until he drinks. So to speak.
Last edited:
Yes, it's quite typical to file a draft order in any litigation. The other side have done it as well. Helps the court.
Well, to this all I'll say is that Peters is not God (even if he thinks he is) and there is a reason I am an athiest.While I understand what you're saying, indeed, the very valid point you make here, there is this other thing that goes on in a human brain. That often - often - hijacks thought processing which can - and is shown time and again to do - color/spin/distort/re-frame/whatever word - accurate evaluation of data. This is one of the contributing reasons why social/theistic/political/moral/ethical ideology can have perfectly sane highly intelligent non-naive non-gullible non-buffoon persons fighting, sometimes to their death, in support of something that absolutely makes no sense to another person(s).
Belief.
Belief is an unconscious mental process. Belief directs the brain to seek confirmation-bias when interpreting data. Has little ever to do with intelligence. And is a built-in human brain function. Unfortunately so in many cases. Often when a brain, a person, has a deep seated Belief, facts have little-to-no power. Facts can be spun, unconsciously, to have little/no/much/etc. validity or merit. And logic can be used to prove/disprove almost anything. Now of course this is not something that can never change or be re-evaluated by a human with deeply held beliefs, but during the time a human is interpreting data while also having a deep seated belief, all bets are off the table for accuracy in interpreting data. Facts are "puny" compared to Belief.
This is shown to be common. All persons. We all work from a set of beliefs. Or I guess we would be computers putting together data with no interpretation of data other than data. You know, like Data.
But Belief carries sway even to the extreme point of cognitive-dissonance when accurate interpretations begin to be recognized by the brain while an opposite Belief is still in play:
"Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried. Still I look to find a way to believe."
Therefore, for me I mean, I 'know' these new facts, this data, is going to be spun by supporter/advocates who have an agenda and damn the facts.... as well as supporter/advocates who have (various levels of) Belief interpreting and using bias-confirmation to make this new information fit within their current seated beliefs.
This second group is not by category populated with damaged persons, it is populated with humans. Whom, I 'believe', (<-- LOL) should not be disparaged but instead keep leading that metaphorical horse to water (facts) until he drinks. So to speak.
Last edited:
Agree
Ayup.
FYI I got the Seuss blog out today, in anticipation that other stuff would hit the fan soon.
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/dr-seuss-enterprises-vs-comicmix/
in case you want to read ...
Many thanks for your kind support.
Nice read, thanks!
At the end you write about the unlikeliness of a settlement in this case: "And I believe defense wants to make law." I suspect that's true of one of the defendants. I'm not sure of the others, who have, for good or ill, gotten stuck on the ride.
The more I think about this, the stupider it all seems. Gerrold should have worked with Geisel's estate and Pocket Books to do this officially.
Let me clarify about the redactions. The mechanical process of composing and then redacting Loeb's documents was done by Loeb. However, the substantive content of the redactions are based on how Winston marked portions of documents and deposition transcripts when they read through them and then informed the plaintiffs.
Under the terms of the protective order issued by the judge, Loeb is bound to respect those redactions until they get a chance to contest the Confidential designation before the judge up until the December 16 deadline for doing so.
Under the terms of the protective order issued by the judge, Loeb is bound to respect those redactions until they get a chance to contest the Confidential designation before the judge up until the December 16 deadline for doing so.
But it's transformative!
Seriously, though, what d'you expect? He started his career plagerizing Heinlein (Martian Flatcats, vs Tribbles), and now he's goin' after Dr Seuss. I lost a lot of respect for him when I learned about the Heinlein flat, and tho The Man Who Folded Himself is a favorite, the rest of my respect was lost over Dr Seuss. Gonna make an indy version of THe Man Who Folded Himself, now. Any Kickstarter takers?
Yes, submitting a proposed order is actually a requirement under the local rules in this U.S. District Court.
Once the chirping crickets are done with their symphony as filler for LFIM & Co.'s silence, I wonder what kind of spin LFIM is preparing now that the latest batch of documents are out. Should make for some lulzy reading.
I think you can see a preview on fb, the old stuff about there's really no difference of any of this behavior from the moneymaking strategies of other fan films is being quoted from twitter as emanating from Axanar supporters. The studios and questioners are hypocritical. No accountability back to THIS group of funded people being obligated to deliver for THIS group of donors and meet the licensing requirements of THIS plaintiff.
I have to wonder, and I really do. If there are any supporters of Axanar even left. After last night's reveal...I cannot imagine that anyone with half a brain can not see how we the donors were bilked out of our money. I mean I paid for that guys gas to drive his girlfriend's car. This angers me to my soul. If there is a class action suit against this guy. I'm in.
I have to think that AP really never considered the possibility that he'd be shut down. Spending the way he did, he had to be thinking that he could continue to generate Axanar money until he got a deal with CBS to "run Star Trek."
Of course there was no way he'd ever get that CBS deal, but he is so self-absorbed that he couldn't see the obvious. He probably still doesn't see it.
Of course there was no way he'd ever get that CBS deal, but he is so self-absorbed that he couldn't see the obvious. He probably still doesn't see it.
Which is ironic considering how many others it seems he tried to shut down.
But he's special.
AxaMonitor
(Please tell me about anywhere I'm reading this wrong)
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 'has' been filed with the court
2. Said Motion 'has' been released and downloaded
3. 'In' that filing there is a Section 3, Part C., p. 13, 11/16/16
4. That says this ??
Defendants used those funds to pay themselves, to pay…., to pay…..., to rent …..., to pay tens of thousands of dollars of restaurant bills
TenS of Thousands of Dollars of Restaurant bills?
Tens of Thousands??
And that is 'in' the legal document? Tens of Thousands is written 'in' that legal document?
Since it's not in quotes may I presume this is a paraphrase of what is written in that document on that page?
5. Which said tens of thousands of dollars amount can be reasonably assumed at this time to come directly from the production's financial documents that are now listed in evidence with the Court…. rather than pulling this mind boggling amount of restaurant bills out of the air using speculation?
For a Fan Film??? Even factoring in that it is the best one ever made? And it isn't yet made?
(Please tell me about anywhere I'm reading this wrong)
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 'has' been filed with the court
2. Said Motion 'has' been released and downloaded
3. 'In' that filing there is a Section 3, Part C., p. 13, 11/16/16
4. That says this ??
Defendants used those funds to pay themselves, to pay…., to pay…..., to rent …..., to pay tens of thousands of dollars of restaurant bills
TenS of Thousands of Dollars of Restaurant bills?
Tens of Thousands??
And that is 'in' the legal document? Tens of Thousands is written 'in' that legal document?
Since it's not in quotes may I presume this is a paraphrase of what is written in that document on that page?
5. Which said tens of thousands of dollars amount can be reasonably assumed at this time to come directly from the production's financial documents that are now listed in evidence with the Court…. rather than pulling this mind boggling amount of restaurant bills out of the air using speculation?
For a Fan Film??? Even factoring in that it is the best one ever made? And it isn't yet made?
Last edited:
- Status