### Apollo BBS Archive - December 31, 1991

       \ | /            .    |    .    ________________
      -- + --             .  |  .     | HAPPY NEW  YWAR|_________|\____===\_|
       / | \                \  /      | FROM APOLLO BBS|         ;-------\o |
         |             -  -- + --  -   ------1992------     |_   __
                    .      / |  \ $`                      |::| |..|
                .        .   |    .                      _ |::| |..|      __
            .          .     .      .                  _|.||::| |..|   __|  |__
         .                                             |..||::| |..|  | :::::: |)

     .                     .                         |..||::| |..|  | :::::: |
     //__//_||_________________________________________|__||__|_|__|__|________|

    *=* Main Menu entered *=*

    Main Menu command:{{P

    *=* Post Office entered *=*

    Mail from Pete Fischer
    Date: 12/30/91  Time: 21:59:36

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

    I believe you can ask a medical question. It is not just doctors. Of course,
    they disavow any consequences from advice you may receive. I went by your
    house about 9 pm, but it looked very dark and I was afraid to wake somebody
    up by knocking. Now I'm getting some garbage, not much though. Pete
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:{{{{{Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:My house always looks {{dark.  {{{Knock on the door or use xxx as

     2:{code to let yourself in {{.  {Raid the refrigerator{{.  Do durgs{, do
     time.
     3:{
     4:I{ wa{s {pro{bably{ here and awake{.{{  {277-xxxx.  -Rod
     5:'{end
     6:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...

    As for the message to which you replied...
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

    Mail from James Matlock
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 00:46:04

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

    Foxes tend to be expensive.  Lining them up is pointless at any rate, since
    they tend to break single-file and aggregate into groups.

    If y^E
    I9"J9QIMQJ9%9
    9er]j=Y%M1I!AM:9=II=]
    Dean's time-machine and see an old one.  Talkies, anyone?
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:{{{{{{{{{{{{Continue

    Post Office command:{R

    Mail from James Matlock
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 00:46:04

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

    Foxes tend to be expensive.  Lining them up is pointless at any rate, since
    they tend to break single-file and aggregate into groups.

    If you aren't interested in seeing any new movies, perhaps we can borrow
    Dean's time-machine and see an old one.  Talkies, anyone?
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:{{{Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Yes, I would love to have t{he {use of {Dean's {time machine. { {That

     2:would {be a {real th{ri{ll.  {{{I{ am ge{tting so{ much garbage th

     3:at I am having {trouble see{ing the scree{n{.  I'm not sure what I {have

     4:written{..
     5:
     6:By the way t{{{you r{ea{lly made some{ good {poi{{nt{{ in your mess

     7:{m{essages a{but Jury Nullification.
     8:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...

    As for the message to which you replied...
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap
    _l(*V-[to Pete Fischer
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:43:34

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:{{Abort

    Post Office command:G

    Goodbye, Rod Williams
    You were on 05:08

    Please hang up now
    {6i5-K8cA_
    NO CARRIER
    `ATDT8431704 RINGING

    CONNECT 1200

    Type

    Apollo 8.0 300/1200/2400

    What is your first name:ROD

    What is your last name:WILLIAMS

    Hello, Rod Williams
    Is your name correct:Yes

    Password:

    Password:$$$$$$$

    Caller # 166875 (19 today)
    It is now 12/31/91  20:47:05
    Last on @ 12/31/91  20:46:40
    Last message read was  (80980)
    Message range is (80766-81016)
    You have logged in 1845 times

       \ | /            .    |    .    ________________
      -- + --             .  |  .     | HAPPY NEW  YEAR|_________|\____===\_|
       / | \                \  /      | FROM APOLLO BBS|         ;-------\o |
         |             -  -- + --  -   ------1992------     |_   __
                    .      / |  \                          |::| |..|
                .        .   |    .                      _ |::| |..|      __
            .          .     .      .                  _|.||::| |..|   __|  |__
         .                                             |..||::| |..|  | :::::: |
       .                     .                         |..||::| |..|  | :::::: |
     //__//_||_________________________________________|__||__|_|__|__|________|

    *=* Main Menu entered *=*

    Main Menu command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 8774
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Girl
    Date: 12/30/91  Time: 22:07:53

    My wife had a baby girl this morning at 8:10am at St. Josephs Hospital.
    Baby and mother are fine.  7 pounds, 4 ounces.  18 1/2" long.  Kind of hard
    to tell the color of the eyes.

    Got to change my first diaper tonight.  Yummm!

    Message: 8775
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Last..
    Date: 12/30/91  Time: 22:32:14

            The NAME...What is her NAME....  you Daddy dork!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 8776
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James Hawley
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 05:34:41

     Congratulations, daddy!

    Message: 8777
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Sweet Baby, James
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 06:56:31

    Congratulations, James!  And to your wife, too!

    Message: 8778
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Baby Doll
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 07:58:56

    Congratulations to Maria and yourself, James.  Wow! I didn't even know you
    both were pregnant!

    Message: 8779
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James on Baby
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 09:27:49

    Congrats James and to your wife that did all the work. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 8780
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 14:01:38

    My wife's name is Claudia...  Rod was making a joke.

    Haven't picked out a name yet.

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Diapers

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Poo poo diapers are the most fun to change.  Ever see green poop?
     2:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 8781

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 80981
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon/last
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 01:04:19

    Well, we can always argue that the American people have exactly what they
    want; or if not, exactly what they're too apathetic or cynical to work
    against.  I'm not sure I buy that, but that's one point of view.
    As far as taxes and the IRS are concerned, people are always grousing about
    taxes until they want something from the government; whether new freeways,
    free or discount health care, subsidies for their industry or business, and
    so on and so forth.  If so many people really want to do away with the
    entire tax system, including the IRS, why don't they stand up on their hind
    legs and make some noise?  Sure, a few do, but they are generally regarded
    by the rest as a lunatic fringe.  Everybody wants their piece of the pie,
    and generally wants to deny somebody else their piece.  So instead of
    getting rid of the pie altogether, they grumble and moan -- and take their
    piece.  Just look at the popular response to the current state of the
    economy: every interview I have seen of the "common man on the street"
    features somebody asking the administration (i.e. the government) to "do
    something" (which typically involves spending money).  Everybody wants the
    government to cut defense spending, until the government tries to close down
    a base in THEIR town which employs thousands of people and injects
    unnaturally large amounts of money into the local economy.

    (CONT.)

    Message: 80982
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Politics
    Subject: continued
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 01:26:28

    One obvious problem with the political system is the obscene amounts of
    money -- tens and hundreds of millions of dollars -- which is spent on
    political advertising and without which, you can't get elected, because
    nobody's heard of you (I'm speaking of high level posts, and particularly of
    the Presidency).  Where can a person get this money?  From special interest
    groups.  Essentially, a few, loud-mouthed but rich and powerful fat cats,
    play "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine."  The rest of the People
    sit around bitching about how little control they have over the government
    (and not doing much else) and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I don't think that outlawing special interest groups is the answer, since it
    is essentially undemocratic to prohibit sections of the population from
    banding together and trying to influence the government to do what they want
    ...that is what everyone is supposed to do.  And as long as there is big
    money, it is not reasonable to expect big government not to flourish.
    Essentially, you have to (1) get people involved in the political system at
    a grass roots level and (2) design your government so that it doesn't have
    the power to grant such favors.  The Constitution (as originally framed) was
    NOT adequate to accomplish (2).  It is full of ambiguous phrases (contrary
    to what $Archimedes likes to think) and far too malleable.
    If they wanted the government to be limited in its powers, they should have
    said something like :here is what the government can do -- and nothing else.
     Period.  But they didn't.  They authorized the government to lay and
    collect taxes "for the general welfare."

    Message: 80983
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Politics
    Subject: another two cents
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 01:53:12

    Really, I think our political system is pretty good.  The real problem is
    that 3/4 of the People are dopes and saps...the same people who buy _Puffy
    Objects_ because some actor in a white smock tells them it's got *fiber* (or
    whatever the latest buzz word is)...the same people who think those smarmy
    petrochemical companies really do have a heart, just because they pay some
    ad agency to put together a commercial featuring seals clapping their
    flippers together as the company logo is flashed on the screen...the same
    people in short at whom commercial advertising and most of the pablum that
    passes for adult programming is successfully aimed, are the ones who are
    impressed by the empty, pathetic, political rhetoric and the inane sound
    bytes which now take the place of an intelligent debate of the issues
    or even a commitment to a clearly espoused plan or point of view...the same
    people are the ones who, come election time, put the same no-good
    sons-of-bitches into office, the very ones who have been screwing them
    blind, just so long as they get a Bud Light and a pat on the head and a
    "there, there, everything is going to be alright," and a bribe payed to
    them from their own pocket.

    Message: 80984
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Imp of the Perverse
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 03:38:28

       Taxes, and the hard-working, ** American who pays them, together
    with an interested, involved, far-sighted government, are what has made
    this country great.
       Anyone who tells you otherwise is either an ignoramus or a charlatan
    trying to take advantage of your stupid, can't-see-beyond-the-weekend
    greed.  If it weren't for taxes, we'd have no national system of roadways,
    no public libraries (and information IS power); no medical care for the
    poverty stricken, elderly poor, mentally ill.  If it weren't for government
    meddling (and the taxes which pay for it) we'd still be a nation of wage
    slaves, our children working twelve hour days in unheated factory basements,
    doing piecework, as they did at the turn of the century; we'd be eating
    adulterated food; big business would turn our air and water and land into
    their cesspools (they are nearly doing that now, but not because there is
    too little control, but because there is not enough!!); we'd have no control
    of our most vital national resources (which properly belong to the people,
    not the Rockefellers); if there weren't standing armies, and the taxes which
    pay for them, we'd all be doing the goose-step, either for the commies or
    the fascists, as if there's any difference; we'd be a third class country
    with third class industry and third class living conditions, because it
    takes concentrated development and investment by the people, in the form of
    taxes and central planning and support, to do what we have managed to do.
    There isn't a single country in the world today which grew past the cottage
    industry stage by following the outmoded dictates of Adam Smith.

    Message: 80985
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Imp of the Perverse
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 03:40:26

    Stop trying to take the law into your own hands.  So you don't like
    the law?  Fine, you have legal, effective recourse.  It's called
    VOTING.  What if every special interest group decided to disobey the
    law every time they didn't like one?  You couldn't maintain a civilization.
    If you had no recourse, it would be different: revolution would be
    justified, just as it was when this country was founded.  But you DO
    have recourse.  You have more freedom and power than most populations
    dream of, but all you can do is invent conspiracies and drum up seditious
    sentiments.  The followers are worse than the leaders.  The leaders are
    generally smart, if cynical and manipulative, with their own best interests
    at heart, if no one else's.  The rest of you are just like sheep, or perhaps
    roosters.  Some big cock crows about mean old Uncle Sam, as if you aren't
    collectively Uncle Sam, and throws in a few phrases about your rich and
    powerful oppressors, the kind of demagoguery which makes George Bush's
    blitherings look downright rational, and you're ready to hang 'em by the
    lamp-posts.  In other words, because you can't convince the rest of the
    people to vote the way you want, to get the laws changed to suit you,
    you're ready to take matters out of the people's hands and into your own,
    because you don't think the people are smart enough to handle their own
    affairs and you put your will ahead of that of the majority.

    (Rule 30.A: Keep 'em guessing.)

    Message: 80986
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Felix-Religious Hug
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 06:55:39

    > The schools don't [embrace religion].  It's against the law.
    > They are not even allowed a moment of silence for students to
    > pray or meditate to the god of their choice.

    The ones that use religious Christmas carols as part of their curriculum do,
    even if it is a subtle embrace.

    And, I hate to burst your bubble, Felix, but both of my kids' schools have
    moments of silence immediately after the Pledge of Allegiance.  I think
    you've got it backward:  If I'm not mistaken state law REQUIRES a moment of
    silence.

    Message: 80987
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Tales & Tall Stories
    Subject: More Crowley Capers
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 07:06:14

    More hilarious tidbits from John Symonds' biography:

       "Like other men of renown, he [Crowley] received letters from strangers.

       'Dear Sir, I am writing to you because I am sure you can help me; my
    story is as follows.  When I was three weeks old I met with a shock which
    has tremendously affected my life.  I was lying in my cradle when a hard
    bowler hat fell off a hat rack and hit me on the temple and rendered me
    unconscious.  The effect of it was that it upset my whole nervous system.
    Since I can remember I have suffered from excessive perspiration of the
    hands and feet, extreme nervousness and extreme shyness, and when I reached
    the age of fourteen I began to suffer from excessive seminal losses, both
    day and night.  I am now thirty-four years of age, but I do not look it.
    . . . I have very great ideals and have a strong desire to do good in the
    world, for instance, putting an end to White Slave Traffic, stopping any
    future war, and it is for this reason I would like to develop my psychic
    power but I cannot do so until I am cured of my nervous condition.
       Now, Sir, as you are a magician...'"

    (continued)

    Message: 80988
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Tales & Tall Stories
    Subject: capers...(2/2)
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 07:06:57

       "Another letter was sent from Wormwood Scrubs [prison]:

       'Dear Sir, since my last letter to you of about 20th November last, I
    have been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for robbery.  This (my
    first conviction) has been due to following in the past a false will and I
    intend to dedicate the fruits of my misguidedness to a strong effort to find
    my true will.  In order to do this, I urgently require a copy of _Magic in
    Theory and Practice_ and I would consider it a great favor if you could
    arrange to have one sent to me here . . . I should mention that the rules
    of the prison make all books sent in the property of the prison library and
    on my discharge _Magick_ will be put into circulation (where it will remain
    constantly), and will, I assure you, find readers -- even unwilling ones,
    for the famine of reading matter is not the least of one's worries here.'"

    [Times have changed, haven't they?]

    Message: 80989
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill # 80899
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 08:58:29

    Your getting kind of silly there. It isn't the banks job to protect people.
    What I do with my money and how much I take out is none of their business.
    It is only their business if it's a vast amount because they need time to
    gather it up. That's all!! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 80990
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley #80901
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 09:00:19

    I agree 100% I noticed NOTHING was said about rates going down - which
    should be the case since everyone absolutely has to have insurance and it
    will be very hard to cancel it! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 80991
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Fred on economy
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 09:09:05

    Why do you think that Doom's day won't happen to us in our economy?
    It has most assuredly happened in other countries. I knew a guy from some
    foreign country like Yugoslavia or some such and he said that they were
    taking wheel barrels full of Marks to the store to buy a loaf of bread - it
    costs trilions of dollars for a gal. of milk, a loaf of bread etc. Inflation
    got out of hand. Over night, they changed it back to it's original worth -
    just like we might change the gold value back to what it's worth - $35 an
    ounce!! As Americans, we all think nothing like that can happen to us, but I
    don't see inflation even slowing down. Where is it going to end in your
    opinion? Does the gov. just keep on printing money that gets less valuable
    all the time? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 80992
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Fred on insurance
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 09:13:17

    We might not agree on everything, but we sure do on this new insurance
    law(s). Maybe we should get back to thinking about 'no-fault' insurance.
    We also need to have a set rate for liability! That is something I never
    understood - the different in rates for liability among the companies!
    Liability is liability, right? What difference you hit a person with a Rolls
    Royce or a Beetle?? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 80993
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Justice v. Law
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 09:47:21

    FS> What we have in practice are Courts of LAW.  What Jury Null would do is
    FS> introduce a chance for JUSTICE also.

    *That* worries me a little bit.  Justice is what you are *supposed* to get
    in equity court -- in courts of law, justice takes a back seat to individual
    rights as opposed to collective rights.  'Justice' as found in the equity
    courts invariably holds some judge's idea of 'the common good' superior in
    importance to individual rights, and that's almost uniformly bad.

    However, this is quibbling; I'm really not concerned about it with regard to
    jury nullification -- I just want it understood that jury nullification
    *only* works when the government is a party to the action, as in a criminal
    case, or as in a 'civil' (equity) case where gov't sues somebody because it
    doesn't like their advertising or something -- whether that case is being
    tried properly at law or wrongfully at equity.  That is where both its
    importance and the fear it engenders among the privileged class resides.  In
    any other kind of a case -- a lawsuit, for example, between individuals or
    corporations or whatever, equity is the proper forum and equity already
    recognizes the right and power of the jury to pretty much decide however it
    wants to.

    This is my opinion based upon my research.  I do not give legal advice.

    Message: 80994
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Value of gold
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:00:00

    FS> I do see an inherent confict though with the idea that you want those
    FS> dollars to be REAL on the one hand but you want gvt to establish the
    FS> value on the other hand.

    It is indeed tedious to keep repeating myself, Fred, but I have said this
    over and over again and you just keep making that silly statement without a
    shred of legitimacy to it -- that is, unless you insist on denominating the
    "value" of something in frns, which is an oxymoron.  So I will say it again:
     Under a gold and/or silver system, gov't does not -- repeat, DOES NOT --
    establish the value of the gold/silver, or the "Dollar."  The market does
    that.  All gov't does is apply a label, a word, and the word is "U.S.
    Dollar," to a given weight of the substance.  Gov't DEFINES the "dollar" as
    X weight of gold or silver of Y fineness.  It does not establish the "value"
    of the gold or the silver or the dollar.  The market defines what you can
    buy with a dollar of gold or silver -- how much of something you can buy
    with a dollar -- and THAT is the value of the dollar.

    I really think the only reason you and I disagree in those other areas in
    which we disagree is your insistence that the "value" of gold must be
    denominated in what we falsely call "Dollars" now, but which are not
    dollars; they are *FRNs*.  If you could line that particular perspective up
    with reality, you and I and Cliff would be talking the same language.

    Message: 80995
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: What's the problem?
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:00:59

    FS> You can, if you choose, immediately take those nasty dirty FRNs over to
    FS> a gold dealer and exchange them for pure gold.

    True, at a net loss in terms of the labor you expended in obtaining the frns
    with which to buy the gold, and at a net loss to your descendants, who will
    have to pay the national debt plus interest those frns represent, because
    you didn't earn substance of value with your labor, you earned debt with
    your labor.

    FS> Then you can hang on to your gold or do whatever else you want with it.

    True, and as long as you hang on to it, it will purchase about the same
    thing that amount of gold would purchase when you bought it -- but that is
    less than the purchasing power you would have had for that amount of labor
    in a gold-based monetary standard due to the losses mentioned above.

    FS> What's the problem??  If you are convinced that gold will not suffer
    FS> the ravages of inflation you have nothing to worry about.

    On the contrary, we have lots to worry about.  We may not worry about losses
    due to inflation once the gold is in our possession, and many of us do
    purchase gold and/or silver coin for that specific reason.  However, there
    are still the losses mentioned above which have already occurred,

    Message: 80996
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Another loss
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:01:52

    PLUS we cannot invest that gold under this monetary standard because our
    return would be paid in frns -- at a tremendous loss.  Under this monetary
    standard, and in spite of the clear wording of the law, gov't will not
    enforce a contract denominated in gold, because while dollars are still
    defined by law as specific amounts of gold, and frns aren't, gov't takes the
    position that frns are legal tender for all debts public and private.  That
    is in violation, among other things, of the prohibition against the
    impairment of contracts; see Art. I, Sec. 10 Cl. 1.

    FS> If, and when, you want to buy something 3 years later, you just haul
    FS> out some of your gold take it to your neighboorhood gold dealer and
    FS> convert it back to FRNs for use on the day of the purchase.

    Again at a net loss, because that dealer is in business to make a profit,
    and he knows the difference in value between frns and gold, and he's going
    to take his profit in gold.  This is akin to -- but much worse than --
    receiving a paycheck which must be cashed at one of those check cashing
    outfits who charge you a percentage of the check for cashing it.  If you
    traded your honest labor for your pay, then why should you have to *pay* to
    get the fruits of your labor converted to usable form?

    Message: 80997
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: What difference?
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:02:50

    FS> ... what difference does it make whether you paid for it directly with
    FS> gold or in the CURRENT equivalent in FRNs.

    Besides the losses listed in the previous message, and besides the heavy
    burden of debt that process places upon future generations, the "difference"
    is that if you made the investment originally in frns, you don't own the
    property in which you are investing.  If you invested gold in some property
    for which you expect a return on your investment, but you purchased the gold
    with frns, then you don't own the gold and you don't own the investment, and
    you don't own the return on the investment.

    The whole problem here, Fred, is getting paid for your labor in a substance
    of no intrinsic value in the first place.  By doing so willingly and
    voluntarily, you are saying that your labor has no value, and that gov't --
    which in turn is owned by the banksters -- owns everything you think you
    own, including your labor, and ultimately, including you.

    This is a back door, sneaky, dirty, underhanded method of enforcing the
    Marxist-Communist idea of "from each person according to his abilities, and
    to each person according to his needs," without anyone having any idea
    that's what's being done to them.  Like Keynes said, "... not one man in a
    million ..."

    Message: 80998
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: No assurance...?
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:04:07

    FS> There is no assurance that a gold money system would be immune to
    FS> inflation.

    You're a nice guy, Fred, but you don't listen.  One hundred and twenty-six
    years of zero inflation.  ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIX YEARS OF ZERO
    INFLATION.  I think that is a fairly good assurance that a gold money system
    would be immune to inflation -- certainly a greater assurance than anyone
    could give that this worthless paper money system is immune to inflation.

    FS> One way or another, BAD gvt is going to find an "out".  If it is not
    FS> thru one part of the economic system it will be thru another.

    FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIX YEARS, government couldn't find an "out," or
    more correctly, the banksters couldn't find a chink in the armor of an
    honest, stable, dependable monetary standard which would enable them to come
    in and take over control of gov't.  Then, finally, in the closing hours of
    the 1913 legislative session, when most of the Congressmen had gone home for
    the Christmas break, their opportunity came and they seized it -- Ohio, by
    the way, was the pivotal vote, and Ohio was not a State in 1913.  How about
    that?  [Okay, someone go look up Ohio in the encyclopedia and then come back
    and challenge that statement, so I can direct them to the Congressional
    Record for the year Ohio was DENIED statehood.]

    Message: 80999
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon Little
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:04:51

    GL> One thing that strikes me is that the line between jury nullification
    GL> and "reasonable doubt" is a fuzzy one at best.

     Re your series of messages on the history of draconian law in England,
    eventually leading to jury nullification:

    My sincere compliments for an extremely informative, incisive, and
    well-presented set of posts, Gordon.  Excellent.

    Message: 81000
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Good news/bad news
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:06:18

    Unknown> Throughout our history (I'll bet Archimedes disagrees with this!)
    Unknown> the trend has been toward improvement; aberrations get corrected
    Unknown> sooner or later.

    I deleted the earlier portion of a message in which this statement was found
    before I found out who made the statement, so I quoted it as an 'Unknown'
    source.  I think it was either Gordon or Bill Burkett.

    Whoever it was, they'd lose their (unqualified) bet.  Taken as a whole, on
    the average, the trend *has* been toward improvements, and aberrations do
    get corrected sooner or later.  However, this is not a linear improvement;
    new aberrations -- or rather, old ones with new names and facades -- are
    constantly being introduced as well in an effort to gain power and control
    for a privileged few.  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

    In that regard, pertaining to a more immediate threat, I would like to quote
    another old homily:  "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to
    repeat it."  The good news is that "Dow Defies Gravity," according to an
    Arizona Republic article sub-headline this morning.  The bad news is the
    same thing happened, and was reported in almost the same words, just prior
    to October 1929.

    Message: 81001
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Banks
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 10:54:53

    Well, considering that one of the more successful scams involving pigeons
    and banks is to pose as a bank official, the banks *clearly* have an
    interest in dissuading you from "cooperating" with "bank officials" by
    withdrawing large amounts of money.

    Message: 81002
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann on Gold
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 11:29:53

            Re: 'just like we might change the gold value back to what it is
    worth - $35 an ounce!!'

            Ann, gold is still 35 DOLLARS an ounce...  It just takes many more
    FRNs to buy gold then 35, because the Federal Reserve Notes are not worth a
    dollar each.  This is unconstitutional, and yet people like Fred defend this
    FRAUD the government has perpetrated on the American public.  It's no
    wonder this country is a mess and is sliding downhill to its destruction.

            Now we even have people like Bill who think it's the banks job to
    'Protect us'... my God, what ever happend to self responsibility?

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 81003
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Tales & Tall Stories
    Subject: more capers
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 17:45:10

      Sick of Paris, Crowley returned to Boleskine.  There, on the shore of
    Loch Ness, he whiled away the time with a woman he had picked up in London.
    One day, bored, he wrote this letter to the secretary of the Vigilance
    Society, a kind of organization for the suppression of vice.

          Sir,
             I am sorry to say that the prostitution in this neighborhood
          is *most unpleasantly* conspicuous.
             Perhaps you would inform me what steps (if any) I can take to
          abate this nuisance, which every day seems to me to grow more
          intolerable.
             I would willingly spend a considerable amount.
             I am, sir,
                 Yours very truly,
                                                Aleister MacGregor

       By return post, the secretary of the Society replied saying that he would
    sent up an observer immediately.  After a further exchange of letters and
    the passage of about a week came the disappointing report that their
    observer had not found prostitution to be especially conspicuous in the
    little town of Foyers.  To which Aleister MacGregor, the Laird of Boleskine
    Manor, feeling that he had been shocked enough over this matter, replied on
    a postcard, "Conspicuous by its absence, you fools!"
    [From Symonds' biography]

    Message: 81004
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Politics(what else?)
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 17:52:21

    Politics has become a capital bore.  I am absolutely indifferent to
    it, and to anyone's opinion of what they might imagine (correctly or
    incorrectly) my political views to be.

    I hereby resolve that in the New Year, I will not be goaded into discussing
    politics, except in the event that Rod Williams takes up banjo playing.

    Message: 81005
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Soviets owned?
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:08:33

    BD> Ummm, how long have the banksters owned the Soviet Union ???
    BD> And *how* have they owned *it* ?

    Well, I didn't say they "owned" it.  Not yet, anyway.  But their involvement
    in the Soviet Union dates back to the Bolshevik Revolution, which they
    financed.  There may have been financial involvement since then, and I
    wouldn't be surprised if there were, but I have no direct evidence of it.  I
    think what happened is that they financed the Bolshevik Revolution and then
    found themselves with a pig in a poke -- they didn't have enough control to
    make the plan work.  So they concentrated on the West instead.  Then, when
    their investment in the West reached the point of diminishing returns, they
    sent Rockefeller over there (to the Soviet Union) to open up new markets.
    So, by getting rid of the Communist infrastructure, which doesn't produce
    enough to make a profit from it, they replace it with a Socialist
    infrastructure modeled upon their success in the West, particularly the
    U.S., which is economically Communist but politically Socialist.  That way
    they gain the control available under Communism but with the production
    capability of a nation that thinks it is "free."

    Something to remember when considering this, as a letter-writer to the
    Arizona Repugnant pointed out recently, is that a Communist is nothing but a
    Socialist in a hurry.  To put it another way, a Socialist is nothing but a
    Communist pretending to support liberty.

    Message: 81006
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Another way...
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:09:08

    To put it still another way, the Communist leaders of the Soviet Union
    "owned" the people and resources and the only liberty there was in the
    Soviet Union.  When Rockefeller made them an offer they couldn't refuse
    (since Communism wasn't working and they were losing their grip) the
    Communist leadership sold out their country to the banksters, just like our
    leadership did in 1913.

    Message: 81007
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Poor analogy
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:09:58

    FS> Again, you are looking at only half the picture.  Lets say, for
    FS> argument sake, that the total amount of FRNs is $100 and the debt is
    FS> $1.  Compare that to a total FRNs of $200 but a debt of $20.  In the
    FS> first case, each FRN represents 99% value and 1% debt.  In the second
    FS> case each FRN represents 90% value and 10% debt.  Then throw in whether
    FS> or not the current income is or is not sufficent to cover the debt
    FS> service OR if the printing of MORE FRNs is needed to cover debt service.

    Now let's consider that the total amount of frns is 100 and the debt is
    8,000.  How is the current income going to cover that, Fred?  That is a much
    closer analogy to the current situation than yours.  And yes, the printing
    of more frns *is* necessary for debt service, and the printing of more frns
    increases the debt as well as the interest on that debt, therefore the need
    for printing more frns for debt service increases -- it is a
    self-perpetuating labor-consuming con game our nation cannot escape without
    catastrophe.

    Message: 81008
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Princip. v. semantic
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:11:58

    FS> It is not true that the only reason for FRNs is as debt.  They exist
    FS> also as a medium of exchange and could be around with or without any
    FS> national debt.

    C'mon, Fred.  If there was no national debt, frns would be worth no more in
    the marketplace that a handful of desert sand.  They are used as a medium of
    exchange only because they make enormous illicit profits for those who print
    them.

    FS> I see you answered my question of who is really "wealthy" by engaging
    FS> in a burst of semantics over the definition of wealthy and eventually
    FS> ending with an Alice in Wonderland world view.  There is no such thing
    FS> as "apparent" power.  Either one has power or one doesn't.  The pork
    FS> belly traders may not meet with your approval but I didn't ask who met
    FS> your approval.  I asked who controlls the wealth?  Who has the big
    FS> cars?  Who vacations in Tahiti 6 months of the year?  And who has
    FS> CONSISTENTLY been doing so year after year after year???

    I love it.  Every time I stand on principle, you accuse me of "engaging in a
    burst of semantics."  It sure reveals your philosophy.  Okay, if you want me
    to answer in those terms, then I will do so in the next message.

    Message: 81009
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Feather Merchants
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:13:20

    FS> I asked who controlls the wealth?  Who has the big cars?  Who vacations
    FS> in Tahiti 6 months of the year?  And who has CONSISTENTLY been doing so
    FS> year after year after year???

    The Robber Barons.  Those who gain ascendancy and privilege over their
    fellow man by exploiting his (and her) labor expended in producing that
    wealth, by paying them with less purchasing power as every day goes by, by
    increasing their cost of living and the cost of living of their descendants
    as each day goes by.  I *agree* that those who produce the wealth controlled
    (but not produced) by people like you do not have the big expensive cars, or
    vacation in Tahiti six months out of the year, consistently or otherwise.

    I consider it absolutely appalling and immoral that the people who knowingly
    and cynically take advantage of others in this way, leading them "down the
    garden path," so to speak, haven't even the good graces to blush when their
    con game is revealed, and the hangers-on and feather merchant wanna-bes who
    follow them around and worship at their feet, naively and foolishly
    considering themselves "among the wealthy," have the unmitigated gall to
    claim that what they are doing somehow makes them "smarter" or "better" than
    the "poor fools" who produce that wealth by the sweat of their brow and by
    consistently exercising their principle of exchanging an honest days' work
    for an honest day's pay -- without ever getting an honest day's pay.
    [Continued 1 message]

    Message: 81010
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Investing...
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:16:19

    Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with being wealthy,
    *per se*, so long as the person who is wealthy makes himself worthy of it by
    *earning* *the* *privilege*.  You don't earn it by spending six months of
    the year in Tahiti, and you don't earn it by giving it away to the "less
    fortunate," and you don't earn it by "jumping into the frn fray" and raising
    everyone's cost of living to benefit your own profit and loss ratio.  You
    don't even earn it by merely investing it in industry which tries to improve
    the living standard of everyone by producing something of value for which
    there is a market.

    You *earn* it, Fred, by investing not only your money but *yourself* in
    industry which tries to improve the living standard of everyone by producing
    something of value, and you make it damned clear that people who produce for
    you will be rewarded with *value* -- not debt -- in exchange for their labor
    and excellence, and not only the person you hire, but every person down the
    line that *he* hires.

    In other words, you become worthy of success by providing opportunity for
    the success of others, and by demanding honesty and principled behavior of
    them -- not only toward you, but toward everyone.  It doesn't matter what
    "industry" we are talking about, so long as you are investing in *people*
    and in their *future* and not merely investing in your idea of "wealth."
    'Six months out of every year in Tahiti,' Y-e-euucck!  Gad, what a
    *parasite* such a person must be!

    Message: 81011
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Priorities
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:17:29

    FS> You are welcome to your world view but so much of it just seems
    FS> basically pointless to me that I don't understand the attraction.

    That's because your highest priority is what you define as wealth.  Mine is
    principle.  Wealth, in the way you define it, is one of my lowest
    priorities.  I mean, don't get me wrong: a little more wealth would be very
    nice; life would be a lot easier; I could give my daughter the college
    education she deserves without her having to waive her (and our) rights to
    privacy by begging scholarships and grants all over the place; and if there
    was enough I could devote some of it -- probably one heck of a lot of it --
    toward those who desperately need help in defending themselves from
    government abuses of their rights.  But Tahiti 6 months out of the year?
    Stick it.  I've been there and I wasn't impressed -- certainly not impressed
    enough to think Tahiti is worthy of either my money or my leisure time when
    there are so many more important -- indeed, *vitally* *essential* -- things
    which need doing and would benefit everyone, not just me.

    Message: 81012
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Tobacco Standard
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:19:15

    FS> I have no doubt that a FEDERAL Tobbacco standard would have worked as
    FS> well.

    You must have shares of stock in Liggett-Myers or something, the way you
    keep coming back to that "Tobacco Standard" nonsense.  Look, Fred, in the
    early years of the colonies, England wouldn't permit the colonies to mint
    their own coins.  Virginia and North Carolina raised bumper crops of tobacco
    which found a worldwide market; thus they began to use bundles of aromatic
    tobacco as a medium of exchange.  At the same time, the more northern
    colonies used wheat, rye, barley, and other crops as a medium of exchange.
    Furs and indian wampum was also used.  All of this was used by default for
    two reasons:  they didn't have any formal "money" to speak of, and for the
    most part they didn't need any; most people supplied their own needs from
    raw materials.  But as the colonies grew, these consumable barter materials
    became unacceptable; a merchant who accepted wheat as barter for broadcloth,
    for example, had to be expert at gauging the grade of wheat, or he would be
    cheated.  The governors of the colonies urged those leaving Europe to bring
    coins rather than equipment and supplies, and finally Pennsylvania received
    permission from the Crown to establish a mint.

    The point is (the above doesn't "prove" it, but wasn't meant to) that you
    cannot use a consumable commodity as money for very long, because just like
    frns run off with a printing press, they devalue when exchanged for labor.
    They get consumed, or become stale, rotten, and/or smelly.

    Message: 81013
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Suspicious
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:20:35

    FS> It is NOT necessary for a medium of exchange to have an intrinsic
    FS> value.

    Well, I haven't given you a chance to answer the message I uploaded earlier
    about using dirt for money, but if you believe that statement I quoted
    above, then I suggest you try it.  If it is not necessary for a medium of
    exchange to have an intrinsic value, then dirt should be as "valuable" to
    you as frns or gold.  It is clear that for all your self-perceived "wealth,"
    you have no idea what makes a monetary system work or not work, what makes
    it a rip-off by the privileged few or a catalyst to improve everyone's
    living standard, or for that matter, do you seem to care much one way or the
    other for the principles involved.

    You know, Fred, you are making me suspicious.  I have presented many, many
    sound arguments here for my position in this discussion, and all I get from
    you are baldfaced statements like the above.  It is beginning to dawn on me
    that you must have a vested interest in perpetuating the lie which is
    draining the life's blood out of America and out of America's future.  Are
    you one who is knowingly profiting from that lie?  If you are one who "jumps
    into the frn fray" and exploits the system for your own benefit then
    obviously you are profiting from the lie, but are you *knowingly* profiting
    from it?  Because if you haven't been up until now, from now on you are.

    Message: 81014
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Religion/schools
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:22:07

    FC> Re:  but when a school promotes an atmosphere embracing any religious
    FC> belief

    FC> That's just it Bill.  The schools don't.  It's against the law.  They
    FC> are not even allowed a moment of silence for students to pray or
    FC> meditate to the god of their choice.  And it was done for the very
    FC> reason that Arik was complaining about.  Our public schools are about
    FC> as godless as we can make them.

    I don't know who 'Arik' is, or what he or she is doing or complaining about,
    but if you want to change the fact you expressed in the above paragraph, I
    have a suggestion:  Students should start praying in school.  Not
    collectively, or in any organized manner, but individually, according to
    their own religious beliefs.  If the school tries to stop the students, then
    sue the school (gov't) for violating the students' freedom of religion.  It
    would be an open and shut case.

    I am opposed to the movement to pass an amendment to "allow" prayer in
    schools for two reasons:  1.  We already have that right now, individually,
    which is protected by the United States Constitution.  2.  If you make it a
    collective right by passing an amendment, then you are putting government in
    charge of controlling it -- telling you when and where you can have your
    "moment of silence," and sooner or later you will be told "how" praying is
    [Continued 1]

    Message: 81015
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Religion/schools
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:23:09

    acceptable (example: silently or loudly, kneeling in a corner or rolling on
    the floor speaking in tongues, etc.) and eventually you will sure as hell
    (is that the right word?) be told to *whom* to pray -- you can bet on it.

    You don't give gov't an inch unless you want it to take a mile.  We already
    have the *right* to pray, anywhere, any time, to whomever we wish, in
    whatever manner we wish.  Let's not throw it away in some hare-brained
    scheme designed to force gov't into a religious mold, because gov't *will*
    come out on top if we do.  And gov't will just *love* us for it.

    Message: 81016
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Ann/insurance
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 20:24:38

    AO> That is something I never understood - the different in rates for
    AO> liability among the companies!  Liability is liability, right? What
    AO> difference you hit a person with a Rolls Royce or a Beetle??
    AO> -=*) ANN (*=-

    Difference #1: a Rolls weighs about 4,200 pounds; a Beetle weighs about
    1900.  Difference #2: It would cost as much to repair a dented fender on a
    Rolls as it would to replace a Beetle.  Difference #3:  In any serious
    collision between a Rolls and a Beetle, the Beetle is going to be rolled up
    into a little ball and tossed into the nearest ditch, while the driver of
    the Rolls might not notice.

    If you hit a person with either one, there would be a slight difference in
    injuries -- but the victim would sue the Rolls owner for a lot more than he
    would sue the Beetle owner for, and the 'Liability' portion of the coverage
    is what pays it -- up to the limits of the policy.  Therefore the Rolls
    driver better have a whole lot higher insurance coverage.

    If either of these vehicles hit another vehicle, the Rolls is going to do
    about twenty-five times more damage than the Beetle will do.

    Does that answer the question?

    Public Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit Chat

    Subject:James Matlock

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Well tonight I only have 50K instead of last nights 55K.  How lucky.
     2:Actually I really enjoyed the messages I read off-line last evening.  They
     3:were all good.
     4:
     5:And in fact I own two banjos.  One is a Lyle 5 string and the other is a
     6:Contessa 6 string.  The banjo is the only instrument that came into being on
     7:this American soil.  You should come over and hear me play some day.  I
     8:won't say 'some evening' because those suckers are really loud.
     9:
    10:Now what was that you were saying about me taking up the banjo?
    11:
    12:                                Rod
    13:P.S.  Would you like to join my sock religion?  It's really dirt cheap to be
    14:a member and the benefits are many.
    15:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 81017

    Public Bulletin Board command:R81017

    Message: 81017
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: James Matlock
    Date: 12/31/91  Time: 21:02:42

    Well tonight I only have 50K instead of last nights 55K.  How lucky.
    Actually I really enjoyed the messages I read off-line last evening.  They
    were all good.

    And in fact I own two banjos.  One is a Lyle 5 string and the other is a
    Contessa 6 string.  The banjo is the only instrument that came into being on
    this American soil.  You should come over and hear me play some day.  I
    won't say 'some evening' because those suckers are really loud.

    Now what was that you were saying about me taking up the banjo?

                                    Rod
    P.S.  Would you like to join my sock religion?  It's really dirt cheap to be
    a member and the benefits are many.

    Public Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    No more new messages