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

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Tue Jun 18 15:20:54 UTC 2002


Repost because no questions have been answered

----- Original Message -----
From: "J Henshaw" <jeff at jhenshaw.com>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)


>
> ----- 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 pris
on
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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