[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Tue Jun 18 01:58:19 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Jeremy" <JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: RE: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)


> > Jeme,  gold has intrinsic value,  but I don't argue that it's edible.
>
> Yes it does have intrinsic value.  But... so does sand.  (We make lots of
> nice things with it, such as glass and chips.)

Let me explain,  because you may be genuine here;  I'll repeat again, as
often as necessary perhaps:

I don't argue sand is edible.  And even though I pointed out that you may
want to trade sand for food or perhaps gold,  if I can use sand or gold to
catch a fish I shall consider your trade equitable and I will have gotten my
meal for the day.

Meal for the day.  It is one thing you should understand quite well,  after
all you ate several times today and you paid for most if not all of your
food with ink and paper,  which are not very filling.

Typical thinking problem, same problem that Jeme has,  but not
insurmountable when you try.

The secret to not arguing apples when I say oranges is to not put words in
my mouth. The secret to understanding others is active listening.  You are,
in fact,  practicing active listening in that you ask for clarification
below,  so I will go take a look in the next paragraphs and try to see if I
can find the right words that will resonate for you and hopefully we can
have harmony when understanding is reached-

>
> You could probably make something nice out of glass (sand) and trade it
for
> food.  Just as you could trade gold for some food.
>
> Why is gold (or anything else) so special that currency MUST contain or be
> linked to it?  (Note: I'm not saying there aren't reasons... I'm asking
what
> they are.)
Not really too sure why it is the only metal that has never fallen out of
favor as a medium of exchange,  but it is indeed a precious metal and a
commodity.

Later when you get the connection between something of value and "virtual" m
oney,  we can bring up the problems that would arise if everybody at once
realized that the common law does indeed proscribe that debts can be repaid
in "like" kind of money.
Actually,  since you are an exceptional student I will challenge your
intellect first and let you give it a stab.
Tell me if you will what is an equitable trade for money backed by nothing?
What is the value of ink and paper that is actually not a medium of exchange
but an IOU from one corporation to a private bank?  In others words a piece
of paper that states right on it in English (only)  that it represents the
debt of one to another,  not a dollar's worth of *edible* ( insert commodity
here )
Also we won't need to get into the issues arising from the fact that no
judge can lawfully ask you to repay a debt in anything other than lawful
money, and many a similar problem with the emporer's "new" clothes.
A final bonus question:  If gold is no more valuable than paper,  why is all
the gold so highly prized by bankers?
You do realize the Goldman Sachs and Alan Greenspan were being investigated
for gold price-fixing and that all the evidence was in the WTC.
Also the Chinese had a lot of gold in that building,  which may or may not
be of interest,  but where is it now?

If for nothing else,  the symbolism of gold as the perennial and
longstanding since Biblical times standard of exchange (and owning every
ounce of it they can no matter what it costs in real terms to achieve their
goal) seems to them so important to some that they will trade their mother's
eyelids for it.
Perhaps they can explain it,  better than I can,  for I do not treasure it
over Justice or Truth nor more than my self-respect.
I personally have a conscience,  which is something others sometimes find
annoying, to the point of killing the messenger to shut him up. If you don'y
understand what I mean by this I would take pleasure in elaborating some
more in that regard at a later time.

Next half of the question:  Is it possible/impossible for any of
> the variables in those reasons to change over time?  (ie, is what made
gold
> valuable in Roman days the same as today?  The same forever?)

Well just remember this:  As long as the medium is connected to an edible
commodity or something you value as highly as food because you know you can
use it to faciltate eating, in real terms during war, famine, hurricane,
riots, enemy troop attack and/or occupation or any other abnormal occurence
like an economic crash due to Keynesian inflation or price fixing
shenanigans, you will not go hungry nor ever face a huingry illiterate mob,
if the govt does job 1 of the preamble to the Constitution, that is.

Disconnect the meal from the medium of obtaining said meal and you lay a
snare that is unjust and enriches one while starving the other. The link I
provided explains this in detail. Better than I can.

Fair enough?

Or are you a "breathairian"?
If you are able to survive on air alone please give me the recipe.
Even Jeme recognizes that my body is my own,  he should also recognize that
he has no responsibilty to feed my body,  nor require me to feed his in
order to coexist peacefully.
Personal responsibility for our own bodies and maintanence of that vessel
must be taken by each of us,  and if one of us outsmarts the other and cons
us out of fish for mere ink,  he is a criminal in any just system of social
contracts or "civilized" society.  This is where culture is important, I
guess,  because some Mayan cultures throw vigins down volcanoes and think
it's ok,  we don't here.  If they want to coexist peacefully they will not
flood over our border and throw my daughter in a volcanoe.
They will not be tolerated if they do,  and justly so. It is her body,  is
it not Jeme?
Or is it "all relative" and easily fixed with pontification and vapid
philosophy.

He is most certainly in my heritage and culture, a fraud if he does this
based on lies and deceit and he is a menace and will cause war if he becomes
the pursekeeper of the world,  because I think we all agree that where there
is no justice there is no peace.

I understand these things and therefore have a social responsiblity to point
my finger at the emporer and remark upon his nakedness, becuase I cannot
live in a "legal fiction" or or thereabouts knowingly and keep my mouith
shut.

I am neither fearful of telling the truth ( I consider it an honor ) nor am
I of unsound mind,  so I speak because my God-given intellect and conscience
requires me to tell my brother travellers that there is a fraudulent
merchant at the bazarre on the road to mecca,  giving phoney fish made of
mud in exchange for your real food stuffs or item of equal value.
He lives in a great cathedral,  so many believe he must be an honorable man,
but he has guards all around his cathedral to keep the cheated hungry
travellers from eating his bones.
He pays for these guards with real fish,  or he would be eaten by them just
as soon as he forgets to give them a little crumb now and then,  to satisfy
their hunger.
But the vast fortune he keeps buried in a vault,  where he polishes it all
night long.
But he is really in a kind of prison in that vault,   as he has created for
himself a debt that he must needs repay for him to ever find peace.

For without Justice,  there is no peace.
But he has fooled most of the people with his great words and great promises
that the fish are really not plastic or mud,  or ink.

But you know the old saying,  you cannot fool all of the people all of the
time.

>
> Again, I'm asking for information/response that you have on this.
>
> > You are intellectually dishonest,  and a "vapid" fool with "arbitray"
> > "notions" to boot,  although verly loquatious and vebose and
> > pompous and
> > arrogant and ignorant,
> > and I have already eaten you alive and spit out your bones
> > metaphorically in
> > the last exchange,  why do you persist in making a constant fool of
> > yourself.
>

I have tried to reason with that one,  many a time before you apparently
were listening,  and he is not here to add to the discussion but only to
spread disorder and lies, misdirection and sleight of hand.
He is ignorant of his own foolishness or he is a tool of evil,  but either
way he has a goal that is contrary to the Law of this land which makes him
an enemy alien.
He does not respect our Justice system based upon reaping what YOU sow,
building houses and living in your own house, and private property rights
beginning with the right to wear shoes. ( I am serious,  yes,  he has
claimed he has a right to the clothes in my dresser and shoes in my closet
which I have sown to wear on my feet while I plow the fields )

He thinks someone else has a claim to not only your house, but it's entire
contents and all your your harvest.

Who else is more deserving than me,  to eat the wheat I sowed for my
children?

Whether or not that someone else is a criminal illegal alien or a man who
does not share the same worldview,  he thinks that he has a right to tell me
that a Great Plan for "A meal for every table" shall be forced upon me if he
has his way,  by mere virtue of majority,  whether or not the majority is
jumping off a cliff so to speak in their foolish misguided attempt to
achieve a nirvana world where no one goes hungry and the grass is always
gree;   And he does not have an answer for where my beliefs can peacefully
coexist with his antithetical one.

The main difference between him and me is that my plan allows him to be an
ignorant fool ( but does not require me to provide him his sustanence while
he's at it.)
Is might makes right just? Tyranny of the majority just? History, if not
reason and common sense, shows it is not,  yet he clings.
What can I do but call him a fool?

> Sorry, I thought it was rather witty, entertaining, and made a good point.

I found it entertaining as well,  but only with the goal in mind of exposing
fallacious arguments where they are fallacious, for the common goal oif
justice and peace and not for the mere impressing anyone with my vocabulary.
Big empty words are still empty words.
2+2=4 no matter if it's Wednesday in Bangkok or Thursday in Beirut.

Anyone who argues otherwise is of unsound mind,  not fit to be a jurist.

And someone who refuses to accept the Tyranny of Insanity by adding the
numbers correctly is not therefore "too opinionated" nor is he "too
arrogant",  nor is he insane or whacko, he is a just correct -and being of
sound mind,  sees no reason to add incorrectly only for the short term
benefits of outcome-based communication with others who are insane or
ignorant or evil.
Particulary when one considers the long term price of outcome based
communication where fictions become more real than the paper they are
printed on, or "Legal Lies" in lawyers terms - it is paid for with blood
 war ) and tyranny in any other color.
It is still tyranny and war.
It is merely delayed for the moment, while one trades their self-respect for
more pats on the back and a sweetheart deal at the food distribution center
as a guard with good bennies, ( free bullets and fish for life)  or a nice
IT job at the bank where the fraud keeps his gold and his bushels of wheat
purchased with your conscience and the respect of your children and
grandchildren,  and their great-granchildren, who will be in debtor's prison
eternally thereafter.

> I expected a better response than a flurry of name-calling, but so far
this
> is disappointing.
>

Agreed,  very.  I expected more myself. At least answering my questions
rather than putting words in my mouth however slyly and misdirecting however
overtly or covertly.

What is the goal of one who misdirects your attention?
What is he afraid to look at, or for you to discover?
Why argue the number of illegals when the issue is they are illegal? When
the issue is the Law itself and the fact is was broken by a person who
doesn't respect it and instead of adding the 2 two's and getting four they
not only get a sum of three,  they say I owe the illegal 1?

> > If you have a genuine interest go buy the book "How an
> > Economy Grows and Why
> > it Doesn't" by Irwin Schiff.
>
> Sure.  Perhaps I will read it.  But never rely on one source.  Best to get
> sources from both sides of any argument, then go from there.

A misdirection and insertion of a premise that supports it's own conclusion
is all you add here.
A sly way to say I need to read more and then I will add 2+2 and get 4 plus
one owed to you?
Math is simple,  I only need grasp the concept and I don't need to read a
math book every time I balance my checkbook.
Unless the rules of the game have changed, as in like fiat money which is
worth less every day ( the number two is 1.87 tomorrow ) which forces you to
become a borrower in order to stay in one place,  and a banker to get ahead.

>
> > He uses an island metaphor to get the simple concept of
> > food/gold connection
> > across to those like yourself who are too busy arguing with yourself,
>
> I'm pretty sure I follow, but why is this "gold" so important?  It is a
> pretty, malleable metal that also has outstanding electrical conductive
> properties.  It has limited supply.  (But lots of things are limited in
> supply.)
>
> I think his point was simply that the value of gold is potentially just as
> arbitrary as the value of anything else.  I tend to agree.  (It is
> traditionally valuable as currency, but just because it has held up
> historically doesn't mean that it can't change.  That's fact number one...
> things change.)
>

Fact number two:  You will starve if you don't eat.  Connect the dots and
you will show thyself of sound mind and a man of justice for peace.

>
> > arguing forest instead of tree,  to see what is the BOTTOM LINE.
>
> What is this bottom line?  I'm interested.  Tell me.

I will,  I promise. Right after dinner.

>
> > I tore up your last mail with one sentence responses that you
> > ignore.
>
> Sorry, didn't see it that way.  Honestly, I just went back and read and
> didn't see anything like that.  (Though I'm having some email issues here
> and maybe I'm not seeing that email yet.)

Read the "True causes are causes too" nonsense.

The "Theory is not Fact" misdirection.

And ad nauseum for months,  and he has always used the ad hominem as his
first response to direct questions with yes or no answers,  if he dares
answer at all.

>
> > A
> > little too simple for a budding wanna-be attorney-at-law I realize..
>
> Enough name-calling, get back to arguing your position please.

I know it is a slimy profession due to the injustice created by their
creative use of similar words for the most part but in this case I say this
because he has openly claimed to be exactly that,  this is his previous
admission in another thread I assure you.
I don't say this for the joy of being belligerent,  but to highlight his
nature.

>
> > BOTTOM LINE,  get to it please.  If you even know what that
> > means, I know
> > you don't,  because you are a muddle headed liberal who moves the line
> > around wherever it suits you,  when cornered by logic and reason.
> >
> > Face it.
>
> Your original request was for people to discuss the topic with you
> intelligently.  I thought it was going just fine, but then you started
into
> that long diatribe... fine.


I am the one who used the one sentence replies to his oratory in response to
my Overpopulation and Communication as the Only Problems premise.

I thought he nicely facilitated my argument,  by not understanding me even
though I used plain English.
It was just his own nature that made his analysis of the subsets of the
arbitrary real causes blah blah blah
so funny to me,  it was more to the point than I can imagine.

Because he was misdirecting in case you hadn't noticed.


> People have opinions, and can agree to
> disagree.

Opinions are fine.

In you opinion,  what is two plus two equal to?
And, if you cannot add,  is your opinion invalid?

>(And I do, but that is beside the point.)  But I'm not seing
> anything here but an extended personal attack on a viewpoint.  What is the
> point of that?

Subjective viewpoints are always valid,  as they are called feelings and I
cannot tell you how to feel nor can I judge you for your feelings,  you are
entitled to them, as they are your own.

But objective facts are not subject to opinion, and you can have an opinion
but if it does not respect reality it is correct regardless of your
feelings.

This is why I carefully choose my arguments and limit them to what is
written down in black and white as the Law.
As math.
As language.

My culture understood these in former incarnations,  and it is being
attacked from every quarter by enemy aliens who cannot add.

What else would you have me do,  somehow make my computer boot off of
interrupt 666 tomorrow due to the new math?

It doesn't care if I can't add,  thusly I must face reality to have an mbr
it can boot from today as well as tomorrow.
Unfortunately for me,  my current PC's can't do the "new math".

jH


>
> And what is my point?  Show me this logic and reason that you're talking
> about.  The name-calling stuff doesn't qualify.  (FWIW, don't mistake me
for
> a liberal, either. Though I usually don't wield the term as if it were a
> dirty word.)
>
>
> Jeremy
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list