[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
Wil Cooley
wcooley at nakedape.cc
Thu Mar 28 06:11:18 UTC 2002
Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw <jeff at jhenshaw.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:57:17PM PST
> Wil Cooley wrote:
>
>
> > I don't understand what you're saying here.
> >
>
> > Wil
> >
Why do you not keep a public argument public? My responses
go to the list.
> Curtiss Poe didn't understand much of what I posted awhile
> back either; and he "questioned the source" because he did
> not understand me.
I don't understand you Jeff because sometimes your writing is
unintelligible. This is the section I was responding to:
"The point, once again, is not in the details - the point is, that
the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel
when defining politically correct thought."
Are you asserting that I'm changing the meaning of the word
"conspiracy" to fit my political ideals? The word conspiracy has
meaned what I assert it means for as long as I've known it and in
all the literature I've read. I challenge you to find a dictionary
where it doesn't.
>
> Others pounced on me as well; Land Patent? whats a land
> patent? hogwash!
>
> Allodial title? Whats that?
>
> I challenged them to look it up for themselves, and not one
> has come back saying that I was wrong.
>
> I think you, Wil, are also suffering from the tendency to
> reject out of hand anything that doesn't square with your
> belief system.
Certainly I am. I assign a higher certitude to things that I have
internalized through time and exposure. That's the way humans work.
If you can present me with clear evidence that something is, in
fact, the case, then I will more inclined to believe you. It never
becomes a closed case, of course. Even matters which I'm fairly
certain of are open to question if the weight of evidence demands it.
Part of the problem, Jeff, is that your arguments are all over
the map. It's impossible to tell from one sentence to the next
what argument you're having. You also have a tendency to disregard
some statements which pose good questions. The problems with your
writing and the disorganization of your arguments prejudice me
against these discoveries of yours.
When you present a statement which is contrary to your interlocuter's
belief, the burden of proof falls on you. Usually, you'd rather
just make absurd statements which are irrelevant.
> You still believe the constitution allows John Maynard
> Keynes' employer to control our money, so I am not surprised!
>
> You still cannot see why inflation robs you, and yet you
> call me delusional.
I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the
value of the money I have on hand.
> I tell you what, since you want to rewrite the constitution
> to account for Keynesian economics, and the inflation he
> championed;
Please cite the messages where I asserted I wanted to do so.
> I will be happy to trade federal reserve notes for any gold
> or silver coins you may have, or any U.S. treasury notes you
> may have, since you obviously cannot tell the difference;
> let someone who can appreciate the difference be the steward
> of any such items, okay?
>
> I am tired of debating with someone who still cannot
> understand BASIC principles of the constitution like what a
> gold coin is and why it is proscribed; worse yet you don't
> seem to recognize the importance of it!
Likewise, I'm tired of debating with someone who cannot argue
clearly.
> You don't appear to be ready to argue the meaning of the
> English language either today or yesterday.
I'm perfectly ready to argue the meaning of words in the English
language. The language itself has no meaning; only the words and
constructions from those words have meaning.
> Is there some new dictionary I need to read, that tells me
> what the current definition of lawful money is?
>
> And if it hasn't changed, who is (actually) delusional?
I don't care about the definition of lawful money. You have
failed to demonstrate to me why it is important and how things
could realistically be changed for the better. If you will, lay
out a plan (perhaps phased in over a period of, say, 20 years)
of how you would return to a system that is consitutional and what
our daily life would look like at that point.
I'm still awaiting your response to a fair number of questions I
have asked. Which dictionary has "conspired" to change the meanings
of words to its will and which words? You started out with "coin",
in our discussion on IRC, and then today moved to "regulate" and
"militia." When did the British crown "conspire" to "restore the
King of England's reign over the freeholders of the USA" ?
Wil
--
W. Reilly Cooley wcooley at nakedape.cc
Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc
irc.linux.com #orlug,#lnxs
When I hear a man applauded by the mob I always feel a pang of pity
for him. All he has to do to be hissed is to live long enough.
-- H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20020327/ca887a66/attachment.asc>
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list