[Fwd: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.]

J.A. Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Thu Mar 28 22:30:13 UTC 2002


I sent this to Wil directly by mistake;  resent to the list.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:52:49 -0800
From: "J.A. Henshaw" <jeff at jhenshaw.com>
To: Wil Cooley <wcooley at nakedape.cc>

Wil Cooley wrote:


 >
 >>Do you think I can give you 20 years of study in a paragraph
 >>without losing you somehow?
 >>
 >>Why in the heck don't you just go look it up? I am not in
 >>the full time education business.
 >>
 >
 > The problem is that you've covered so much ground that it's
 > impossible to know what "it" is in the above sentence. 
You can't
 > make a single point and back it up.  When I ask you more 
carefully,
 > you side-step the point with non sequiturs and ad ignoratum
 > arguments!
 >
 > (Scot, didn't I tell you this is what he'd do?)
 >


Take your pick,  Wil,  and look it up.  You don't think the
constitution requires the govt to use gold and silver coins,
   I say it does.

I point out that no state shall use anything but gold and
silver coin as payment for debts.


You grab a dictionary and read off a definition of coin to
me that says a coin is a piece of paper.

How does a govt make a silver or gold piece of paper,  Wil.


If I cannot pay a debt because the lawful means of doing so
is removed from circulation,  this opens a huge can of worms.

For now, however,  since you cannot pick any topic from all
of "it" we've covered; I'll again go back to the simple
concept of a gold standard and a gold coin,  and ask you
how can a debt be repaid with today's legal tender?

Remember: A debt can only be paid with lawful money,  as far
as the court is concerned.

A debt can be repaid in like kind of money, as far as common
law is concerned.

I asked you if the bank would like being repaid for a home
"loan" with like kind of money.

I wonder if you would like being sued in a court of law for
payment of a debt when the holder in due course of the
"note" you wrote from your checking account for,  say,  a
car, went to the federal reserve and asked for his gold
dollars, and was laughed out of the bank.

Now he has a worthless piece of paper,  and you have his car.

You have not paid for the car yet,  as he has not recieved 
equitable consideration.


By the way,  this has been done,  and can be done, at any time.


Banks have beem sued under the RICO statutes as a matter of 
fact,  and plaintiffs have won treble damages.


I named a book you can get at your library,  written by a
retired Admiral and L.L.B. which goes into great detail and
it names the cases in which these plaintiffs won.

I do not expect to rewrite that book here in email in order
to convince you of anything,  it is an exercise for the
reader to follow up if you have doubts.

I don't take responsibility for proving every word I say to
you,  particularly when I have the strong sense that you are
looking for ways to shoot it down at every turn,  while
being flippant and joking about things constantly, I don't
get the sense that you are genuinely interested in the
facts,  it seems to be a game to you and that is why I don't
take hours out of my day to "prove" my "discoveries" to you.

The ones I have provided cites for "bore" you and you do not
finish reading them.  Why do you still expect me to play
that game?



 >>>>
 >>>I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the
 >>>value of the money I have on hand.
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>OK so far so good....
 >>
 >
 > Actually, I mispoke here.  What I should have said was "I can
 > perfectly well recognize that inflation decreases the 
value of
 > 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;
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>
 >>There is a a message wherein you say that the constitution
 >>didn't account for inflation,  and so on....if you can't
 >>follow your own arguments,  it's no wonder you can't follow
 >>mine.
 >>
 >
 > That statement was in a wholly separate argument which I was
 > having with Scot.  I was asking him an hypothetical question
 > about what he thought of the matter.  The context should
 > have been clear.
 >


The thread is the same,  whether you addressed Scot, or
whoever is reading the thread,  I don't see a great
distinction here.


 >
 >>In another post you say that the first and second amendments
 >>need to be reexamined.
 >>
 >>Hence, my perception of your view that it needs to be
 >>rewritten... I guess reexamined in Latin means something
 >>else,  who knows.... sheesh!  I can't follow you Wil! DO you
 >>or don't you want to rewrite it?
 >>
 >
 > In English even!  "reexamine" does *not* mean "rewrite"!
 >
 >


What, pray tell, is the point of re-examining a written
document, if not to rewrite it.



 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>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.



Wil,  if you don't care about definitions,  why are we even
discussing dictionaries.

Why would/should someone bother to explain things to you
when the definitions are not important to you?

The topic of how things would be changed for the better is
enormous and far-reaching,  better for you to get a book and
take it upon yourself to find out, I am not arguing this
part of it at any rate; I was arguing the fundamental points
such as the constitutional requirement for gold backed currency.

The notes to the constitutional convention have plenty to
offer in support of my position,  have you read them yet?

Why not let Thomas Jefferson speak for himself on this 
subject,  he is far more eloquent than I.


Retyping his words is not my idea of time well spent.


 >
 > So this is able to just happen, *poof*, overnight?  Everyone
 > will like it more than the way before?  We'll still be able
 > to get along with the rest of the world?
 >


And what if it is? Will you still find ways to disparage
anyone subscribing to this simple concept because it is not
often repeated and not yet internalized by you?  I have my
doubts,  chiefly because you seem to think it is absolutely
absurd.

Even the most cursory study of this subject will quickly
prove that inflation is a disease that is like a cancer on
our society;  I am absolutely amazed that you seem to
dispute this.

Do you think latchkey children are a good thing? Two wage
earners to make ends meet a good thing?

Is it so hard to see?  There are two examples for you right
there.  I don't think the entire litany is going to make my
position any more or any less persuasive,  so I will leave
it at that.


 >
 >>>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


Verbicide is what it is called.  Is that word in your
dictionary?

Until you understand the magnitude of the swindling of the
nation via privately held banks controlling your money
supply,  I refuse to get into a completely unproductive
tangent such as verbicide and it's ramifications.

You are the one who brought out a dictionary and tried to
prove to me that the constitution does not mean gold coins
when it says gold coins,  okay.

I don't want to argue about the lexicographers when the
point is the constitution and it's intent.

The constitution and the words used within,  it is generally
agreed, should be analyzed within the context of the
language in use at the time it was written.

The accepted dictionary in use at the time, Black's Law.

The 1828 Black's Law edition is the proper dictionary to
look to.

After that verbicide has shifted the meaning of too many of
the words chosen by the authors of said constitution,  and
using your Websters 2001 is not going to be a valid
reference for the purpose of the discussion at hand.


Can you agree to that?



 >>>
 >>
 >>Yes, and I told you that Title 4 has the governments own
 >>rules for the war flag and what it was about,  you do not
 >>respond after I show you.
 >>
 >
 > Yes, because reading about how to fold the flag bores me.
 >


Well that's your problem,  not mine.


 >
 >>We will argue about etymology rather than here your
 >>assessment of the gold fringe on the flag,  and it's
 >>significance.
 >>
 >
 > I fail to see any significance.  About the only thing 
you've said
 > about it that sounds at all important is



Uh,  yeah,  it is *a little* important, WIl..

that the flag that flies
 > now indicates wartime and marshall law,



Martial law


in which a person is guilty
 > until proven innocent.



Just a *slight* change to the justice system,  eh.

Is that the point you're trying to make?
 > If so, why has the judicial system not made any recognizable
 > changes?


This is too naive to be intellectually honest coming from you.


Where are the protestors screaming in the street about
 > innocent-until-guilty being overthrown?


Uh,  a lot of them are in jail,  I can list a few.  But you
don't want the answers,  you are arguing with yourself are
you not?

Why didn't you just say that
 > in the first place instead of sending me to a page with 
paragraph
 > after paragraph about how the flag should be folded?
 >
 >


Because you asked for cites.


 >>>You are still waiting for responses because I don't see 
the point in
 >>having several simultaneous debates with you;  you 
apparently cannot
 >>follow too well and as you say,  you think coins are 
paper money since
 >>our discussion in IRC and yet you think you understand 
money perfectly
 >>well... why go any further?
 >>
 >
 > I never said I think coins are paper money; they are 
manifestly
 > different types of objects--one made a base metal (with a 
gloss of
 > precious metal) and one made of Crane paper.
 >


I see you neglect entirely lawful money, coins which are
made of pure precious metals, not coated with a gloss of
precious metal.

I made reference to this again and again because you had a
dictionary claiming that coin and paper money were one and
the same,  Wil.

Was it published in 1776?  Have you read the notes to the
constitutional convention? If you have,  why don't you see
my point?  It is clear that we had a war to break free from
the bank of england,  and its paper money,  is it not?

Is that news to you?  Why do you suppose that fought a war
over this if it is of superfluous import??

Are you being rhetorical like you are when you ask why we 
need a 2nd amendment, or what?


-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they
will have for lunch.


-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they 
will have for lunch.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list