I do thank you for this timely clarification. I am also sympathetic with your desire to have some private communications wrt your concerns.
Going forward, I trust that those attending to this forum are responsible individuals who want to be kept informed about matters that should be of concern to the general public. That is what forums are for, I believe.
From your above post.....
However I do know that many countries do not permit certain activities on their lands. How they apply that to other lands does not fall within my specific knowledge. I am under the impression however, that what you are endorsing and promoting here, would be a felony if carried out in the USA or Canada.
Certainly, the CIA is very restricted in what activities they may engage, domestically. As a for instance, Ron has apprised me that, in the past, some of his interactions with me, as a citizen, on US soil, have been specifically authorized by the FBI. You, Jake, would not be so protected, being the citizen of another country.
As I have stated above, assassinations are, by definition, a contravention of local jurisdiction. Do I promote such activity?
Al Kareem and specifically their WCUAVC... http://www.wcuavc.com/ is intended to provide TACP, technology assissted counter-poaching, now and in the future, within various national jurisdictions. I do promote their conservation activities, which may, conceivably, contribute to the deaths of some poachers.
It is my understanding that the activities of Al Kareem and the Princess, in the Kruger National Park, were being closely monitored by the local gendarmerie and by the S. African armed forces. In such situations, I doubt that your concerns would be disregarded.
However, the situation is liable to become rather more 'complex' when the Princess turns her attention to the protection of the snow leopards in the Ladakh region of Kashmir, her native territory.
As a putative Princess of Kashmir, she is promoting the self-rule of Kashmir, in contravention of the variously disputed jurisdictional counter-claims being made by the Chinese, Indian and Pakistani military forces of occupation.
As the Al Kareem operations are migrated to the Ladakh, there will indeed arise questions of authorization. Just one such issue will be the proclamation of Kashmir to be a nuclear-free zone. Will the global intelligence community not be involving itself in such matters as may or may not overlap with the protection of the native leopards? It would be hard to imagine otherwise.
Should the POTUS disallow the Princess, as a US citizen, from traveling to Kashmir to engage in activities that might actually be intended to lead to an international incident, involving, possibly, the deaths of one or more individuals?
This is an eventuality worthy of some discussion, I would imagine.
I had the opportunity, last evening, to discuss 'Simplicity' with Craig.
It could well be the most important philosophical treatise in modern times. However, in the year since its publication, it has received very little notice. I suspect that, if it is to be awarded its rightful place in the philosophical cannon, this will come about in the context of the MoAPS in which it ought to figure prominently.
Craig evinces scant interest in the future of philosophy or of humanity, for that matter. He shows virtually no evangelical concern, in either regard. Nor do I recall a mention of any pending work.
His agnosticism seems firmly in place. He claims not to be an idealist, rather a perspectivalist. This view is based on a strong distinction between ontology and epistemology. Were God to make the scene, he admits that this would occasion a radical shift in his metaphysical views.
My main remaining curiosity would be to guage his reaction to the crucial notion of a CTC. Having scant acquaintance with GR, he may have no conception of such. Nonetheless, I want to observe the reaction.
From my continuing study of the book, I do see that the very notion or possibility of simplicity will inevitably call into question most of the philosophical enterprise since Hegel. It is the most subversive concept to emerge in the postmodern era.
I need now to apply it to the aether/logos.
The closest that Craig gets to the aether is in his treatment of substance as the ground of being.
Ontologically, the aether would lie between substance and the void. Substance, on his view, is potentiality. His notion of space is mainly Newtonian.
And, for the record, Craig rejects the standard view of relativity in favor of Walther Ritz' emission theory wrt photon propagation. This seems only atavistic to me, and, coming from a young-earther, that is a fairly high bar.
From: Dan Smith
Date: December 5, 2013, 9:25:47 PM EST
To: Ronald Pandolfi
Cc: Dick Farley, Princess Aliyah
Subject: Re: Lunacy
I can post only what I can reasonably infer. If you wish to dispute my inferences, then I invite you to do so.
Nonetheless, I will post your comments, below.
On Dec 5, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Ronald Pandolfi wrote:
After reading Farley's odd note, I took a quick look at your blog. Please inform you blog colleagues that your posting are largely fabrications, not reflecting the reality of me, the Princess, or the Wildlife Conservation UAV Challenge. If they have interest in the Wildlife Conservation UAV Challenge, they should read www.wcuavc.com. If they have interest in fabrications, they should continue reading your blog.