### Apollo BBS Archive - January 2, 1992

    Mail from Pete Fischer
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 23:59:29

    There were *NO* high explosive devices in the briefcase, only worthless
    stock certificates. Hope you had a good day. Remember, the only good commie
    is...well..I think you know...
            My neighbors are really hammering me at the moment. I sure wish I
    had some way to make them stop. Adios, Pete
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Perhaps you could entice the Dirty Dozen Motorcycle Gang to spend a week at
     2:your house.  Of course you would have to furnish the beer, they would
     3:furnish the 'crank'.
     4:
     5:I have a few 'biker' friends and one of them lives next door.  He is a
     6:Harley Man.  Or hire a couple of Van Buren repo men to spend a few days with
     7:you.
     8:
     9:There is a book sold at Spy Headquarters that tells how to 'get even' with
    10:enemies.
    11:
    12:Cut off their gas at 2 a.m. and turn it back on at 2:03 a.m.
    13:
    14:Have a 'man to man' with your neighbor....invite him out for beer or coffee
    15:and arm wrestle him.  People can become better friends after a fight
    16:especially of those people who still have some 'child' remaining in them.
    17:
    18:                                        Rod

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 8788
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Stinkeroos
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:35:09

    Actually, the diapers don't start to smell REALLY bad until the kid starts
    eating something besides mother's milk.  Then, hooooeeeee!

    Message: 8789
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Poopoo
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 12:20:14

    Ah, that must be why nursing is sometimes prolonged for 2-3 years in many
    cultures.  They must want to put off weaning until the kid is potty trained.

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Nursing

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Actually what Bill said is true.  Once meat is put into the babies diet then
     2:the poop changes character.  The benefits of mother's milk gives the baby a
     3:much better start than cow or goat milk.
     4:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 8790

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 1586
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
    Subject: Spike Jones
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 03:46:58

    Is there really a "Best of Spike Jones" CD?  That would be a keeper.

    Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat & Sing

    Subject:Spike Jones

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Digital?
     2:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 1587

    Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 81064
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bands
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 01:44:06

     BB>>I'd forgotten how great a marching band sounds!  Except for the
     BB>>clarinets, of course.  They always sound kind of wimpy and out of tune.

    Our school orchestra always had a plaintive, reedy tone, lacking in presence
    and power.  They had woodwind and strings -- but no brass.  Don't know why.
    I can't imagine that there was nobody willing or able to play trumpet,
    trombone, or oompah.  Maybe with the orchestra being so small, they thought
    that brass would overpower the other players piping into their piccolos and
    scraping at their off-key violins.  Pity.

    A friend of mine in Mass. used to play tuba in high school, in spite of
    which he always described marching bands as "mechanized farting".  This is
    not entirely an unfair assessment.  Many bands do sound good, but those that
    do are usually also in tune with one another.

    My father played most brass instruments in his time, in a Salvation Army
    band.  This particular brand of musical skill doesn't seem to have emerged
    in me yet.  Any note I can get out of a trumpet is usually random in both
    duration and pitch.  And I have yet to get a note out of a set of bagpipes,
    except by removing the drone and applying the chuck of an air hose.

    Scotsmen may inherit leather lungs with their genes; but I have a theory
    that what a Scotsman has under his kilt is not what you think.  That loose
    garment is designed to hide a small battery-operated air compressor.

    Message: 81065
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/schemes
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 05:45:12

     You find it difficult to understand how "anyone with half a brain would
    fall" for a well planned and executed con scheme.
     About all I can say to that is that you have probably never been played for
    the sucker. Even with all the publicity that the one major con (I forget he
    name of it) gets every year about this time, there are still people who get
    taken, and they're not all ignoramuses, either. They are usually elderly
    folks, as often as not, they are snowbirds. The cons have a nack for
    spottiting the ones that are most liable to have money in the bank, and they
    are very good at what they do. The con itself, like all cons, play to the
    most basic of human faults, greed. The chance to get (seemingly) something
    for nothing is hard to resist, and if one isn't well fortified with
    information concerning the con, one can be easily taken in by a couple of
    good artists. It really has nothing to do with the capacity of anyone's
    brain.

    Message: 81066
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: Fred & Arch
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:00:45

    Yo!  Archimedes and Fred Smith!

    Stay cool guys.  You're both approaching the "Jane, you ignorant slut" level
    of argument here.

    This has been an engaging and fascinating discussion for several months now.
     Please don't let it end in acrimony.  It'll taste bad to all of us.

    Message: 81067
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: Mr. Matlock...
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:01:11

    James, the remarks you've made in messages 81058 through 81060 regarding
    Archimedes's character are out of line.  Please edit or withdraw those
    messages -- and issue an Apollogy -- immediately.

    You've got some important points to make about argumentative technique,
    James, but to frame them in personal attack cannot be allowed.  (In fact,
    it's the points you make which cause me to give you a chance to rework your
    comments rather than simply pull them myself.)

    Message: 81068
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann-Refusing
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:32:51

    > I found it abhorrent too, but what could I do about it? You
    > could say I was not cooperating by not telling them what I was
    > going to do with it. But how could I stop them from telling the
    > IRS? And remember what Archi said about Structuring -  can't
    > even sneak it out a little at a time. What would you do when
    > you say you wouldn't cooperate??

    I'd do pretty much what you did: Simply refuse to fill out whatever form
    they had and refuse to answer questions.  But I'd do it without any
    illusions that this action alone would strike any serious blows to the IRS.
    They'd just have to work a little harder to get their information.

    Message: 81069
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Scheming Cliff
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:33:24

    > I have looked into these so called schemes to take money from
    > would be victims and find it difficult that anyone with half a
    > brain would fall for them.

            Ah!  But that's the rub!  A con's victim HASN'T looked into it, and
    it seems so fortuitous and reasonable at the time...  Well, why not?
            I agree with your skepticism, but not necessarily that those who
    haven't thought it out should be left to fend for themselves.

    > I think that if people would realize that we need to look out
    > and be responsible for ourselves, these scams would stand less
    > chance of happening.  Big Brother has given us false security,
    > yet we keep paying in and screaming for more.

    These schemes have been around for centuries.  Their success has nothing to
    do with hoping Big Brother will take care of us.  It has to do, as Paul
    said, with greed and a bite of a free lunch.

    Message: 81070
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred - $ v. FRNs
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:33:56

    > ...if the gvt establishes the equation between GOLD and FRN's
    > then the GVT IS establishing the value of those two things in
    > relation to each other.

    I know Archimedes doesn't seem to need my help in expressing himself, Fred,
    but let me take a whack at this.

    I think where you and he part on this specific issue is that he says the
    government has the right to say a DOLLAR has a particular value in terms of
    SILVER or GOLD, and that a DOLLAR is not the same as a FRN.

    OTOH, you seem to be of the opinion that a DOLLAR and a FRN are one and the
    same, therefore, any change in the definition of a DOLLAR (in terms of
    SILVER or GOLD or whatever) represents a change in definition the FRN.

    It seems you've been talking past each other on this point.

    Message: 81071
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: James-Reading Arch
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:34:20

    > Speaking of true believers, did you see Archi's guest column in
    > today's Republic?  I suppose congratulations -- of a sort --
    > are in order.

    I'd like to hear more about this, James.  Was there a piece under an
    "Archimedes" byline, or are you saying you know his/her true identity?  Or
    are you being coy about an article by someone espousing similar views?

    Message: 81072
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod's Learning
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:34:41

    > I'm learning but I'm not sure what I'm learning because the
    > pieces are still out of place.

    What a lovely and honest sentiment!

    In the scriptwriting seminar I do from time to time, in the segment on
    determining what the message of the script is, I like to tell the story of
    my then three-year-old son drawing.  I asked him what he was drawing and he
    picked up the paper, turning it several directions.  After some study he
    finally replied, "I'm not sure yet."  What a wonderful way to approach
    learning and creativity!

    Message: 81073
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Joke
    Subject: Happy New Year
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 11:30:22

    Another new year, but then again, time doesn't exist.  Hi Wod.

    Message: 81074
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 76 Trombones
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:24:13

    I know.   My editor doesn't default to 76 and I always forget to reset it.
    Where was the guest column?  I don't remember seeing it unless it was the
    letter about ranchers and miners.

    Message: 81075
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Matlock
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:30:28

    You are right, the parallels between religion and other beliefs are
    striking.  Just about all of us have some of those "hot-buttons" that when
    pushed cause us to get a bit ahead of ourselves.

    Message: 81076
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:35:43

    One reason you may be finding some of the economic arguments difficult is
    because there really are no clear cut answers for what goes on in the real
    world.  Learned economists themselves hold widely different opinions of
    what's "right" and what's "wrong".  As to the question of "what to do when
    all hell breaks loose....but not at the expense of others..."  I would
    suggest that Arch's idea of having  his gold stash for when the collapse
    occurs could be construed to be taking advantage of others if that day
    comes.  I wouldn't agree with that position but it could be argued that way.

    Message: 81077
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill B/Schemes
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:39:16

    Almost everyone who has dealt with a car dealer has been on the recieving
    end of a con.

    Message: 81078
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill B/$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:44:37

    SInce the gvt does not issue "dollars" only FRNs and since FRNs are
    denominated in "dollars" then they are, in any meaningfull sense, one and
    the same.  That is precisely where I think ARCH has gone off the track.
    What he really wants is for the gvt to, in essense, start issueing (even if
    they don't acutally put it in circulation) these things he thinks of as
    "real dollars" and he figures that the "real dollars" will be far more
    valuable then FRNs.  And if the gvt did it the way he wants them to they
    would be far more valuble, which would be exactly why they could not issue
    them - the system would not make any sense.  You cannot have two currencies
    in circulation and with offical backing unless they have offically
    maintained parity.  I understand what Arch wants but he ain't gonna get it.

    Message: 81079
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill/The SYSOP Speak
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:02:54

    I've already written a bunch of messages in reply, but I think I've backed
    off from the "Jane, you ignorant slut" allegory without giving up any
    logical advantage in the discussion.  If you think I am still a little too
    ... uh, pointed, shall we say ... then let me know again.  Thanks for your
    suggestion.

    Message: 81080
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: SYSOP/Mr...
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:05:41

    If it makes any difference, I did not see James' messages in 81058 through
    81060 because I've been filtering him out.  You can probably see why.

    Message: 81081
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Prayer in Schools
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:11:39

    FC> The United States had a lot of prayer and various Christian activity
    FC> for about the first 200 years of history and none of your reasons
    FC> happened.  Why then should they happen now all of a sudden if prayer
    FC> were permitted again?

    Because the prayer and various Christian activity for about the first 200
    years of history (I don't think it was quite that long, but that's a
    quibble) was unorganized and what people wanted to do and naively expected
    everyone else to agree to.  It bespoke a certain provincialism; i.e., "I'm
    Southern Baptist and therefore everyone must be Southern Baptist.  Therefore
    why would anyone object to praying in school?"  That sort of thing.

    People explored and fought for their inherited and unalienable rights to not
    have another man's religion rammed down their throats, and they succeeded in
    putting teeth into the Constitutional separation of church and state.  (A
    bit too much teeth, I might add; I see nothing wrong with using school
    facilities for after hour prayer meetings so long as every denomination has
    equal access.)

    But let me present the problem to you this way:  Suppose gov't recognized 'a
    moment of silence' in schools because Buddhists wanted to say 'OOOoooom' for
    60 seconds.  Wouldn't you feel a little threatened, even though you could
    pray to your own God during that moment?

    The answer to the other half of your question -- why do I feel it would be a
    problem now when it wasn't for a long time -- is that the difference is that
    gov't would have to be involved with it as an "official action."  Before it
    was unofficial, and no one, gov't official or private individual (except for
    perhaps those who didn't want to participate in other people's religious
    ceremonies) felt that official gov't was taking a hand in it.

    I can see the point of those whose religious beliefs conflict with the
    Christian beliefs.  I can see it because of the adage, "If they can do it to
    'them' then they can do it to US."  I would not want my daughter to be
    required to participate in someone else's religious ceremony.  I would not
    even want my daughter to be required to give up a portion of her learning
    time in school because someone else's religion had gained the power to
    divert the resources of the school for a period of time.  My daughter is in
    school to learn what she needs to learn in school; she does not benefit from
    organized prayer because she can pray any time she wants to, and she
    certainly isn't going to benefit from everything coming to a screeching halt
    for a period of time so someone who wants to pray won't be distracted by
    anything so secular as schoolwork.

    School resources and time are limited enough without parsing it out for
    organized prayer and meditation anyone can do on their own time.

    Message: 81083
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: True Beh?
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:14:13

    BB> Uh oh.  Anyone else get the feeling we're moving from politics to
    religion
    BB> here?  You're starting to sound more and more like a True Beh.

    I don't know what a "True Beh" is, but I have to disagree that I am
    exhibiting a religious fervor about this (if that is what you are
    inferring).  It seems to me that religious fervor is built on faith, and by
    definition, faith cannot be proven sufficient to meet any criteria of legal
    or scientific proof.

    On the other hand, the fraud inherent in our current monetary system admits
    easily of both legal and scientific proof.  My comment to Fred was based
    upon the fact that I can and have presented a considerable amount of sound
    argument, backed up with facts and figures, with legal documentation proving
    that the framers of our Constitution knew about the evils of this kind of
    system and were intent upon prohibiting it, that that was very nearly the
    primary reason for the Constitution in the first place, and I can and have
    demonstrated repeatedly that everyone loses and everyone's descendants lose
    in this kind of system, and instead of addressing those arguments, instead
    of trying to prove they are wrong, Fred merely comes out with baldfaced
    statements like "A medium of exchange doesn't have to have any value" or
    some such.  Now, if you want to talk about religious fervor based on faith
    and nothing else (except, perhaps, a cunning avarice), then there you have
    an example to consider.

    Message: 81084
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Freedom of choice
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:14:55

    Ar> Students should start praying in school.  Not collectively, or in any
    Ar> organized manner, but individually, according to their own religious
    Ar> beliefs.

    BB> Yes!  With an added "if they wish to."

    Indeed.  And absolutely only if.

    Message: 81085
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Insurance
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:16:18

    AO> Yes I understand, but now that insurance REALLY is mandatory, shouldn't
    AO> the rates go down on these? More people paying in, etc.??? I read in the
    AO> paper this morning that the rates may go up if nothing else. -=*) ANN
    (*=-

    I can think of no reason at all why rates should go down with this mandatory
    insurance deal *or* with "No-Fault" insurance.  The rates are based upon
    statistical analysis of both accident rates and repair costs within given
    geographic areas; it isn't too important whether claims are paid out for
    what a driver does to someone else or what someone else does to a driver.

    Plus, as Fred has pointed out, mandatory insurance doesn't matter because
    the loss to carriers is drivers who can't afford insurance in the first
    place.  Making it mandatory will do nothing but (occasionally) getting their
    cars impounded, which will do nothing but increase their dependency upon the
    State for their existence, and I don't think will happen often enough
    *before* an accident to make a difference.

    This is not a suggestion that we should have greater gov't control over our
    lives, but if California insurance rates are cheaper it's because California
    enforces its traffic laws.  I don't mean heavier penalties; I mean they have
    trained officers on the road seeking incompetent drivers.  They also have a
    reasonably intelligent idea of how to program traffic lights at
    intersections to minimize accidents.  In these areas, Arizona is a joke.

    Message: 81086
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Modest Inflation
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:17:38

    FS> You don't see inflation slowing down??????/  Where have you been?  It
    FS> was double digits around 10 years ago, now it's down to almost nothing.
    FS> And many economists feel that a modest inflation rate is the most
    FS> effective way to keep an economy humming.

    Ann, Fred is conveniently ignoring what I've presented to him regarding the
    true inflation rate, most of which will have to be paid by future
    generations, versus the carefully massaged gov't figures.  And you have to
    remember that a so-called "modest inflation rate" is the *only* way to keep
    an economy humming when you have a fraudulent, unConstitutional, debt-backed
    currency as we do.  You don't need inflation to keep the economy humming
    when you have an honest monetary standard of intrinsic value, as the framers
    of our Constitution knew and which they compelled of government in the
    Constitution, and which worked fantastically well for over a hundred years.

    I consider it a pretty cynical effort at disinformation (read that as
    'lying') when any so-called economist claims that a "modest inflation rate"
    is necessary to a good economy, when in fact an institutionalized inflation
    rate of any kind is one of the strongest indicators of fraud in government.
    It is not necessary at all; what is necessary to keep an economy humming and
    our children out of the poorhouse is an honest monetary standard.

    Message: 81087
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Supreme Court
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:18:52

    FS> Until the supreme court says it's unconstitutional it's constitutional.

    Oh, brother!  Wrong, Fred!  The United States Constitution was written in
    plain English instead of Latin so the *People* could read it and understand
    it and demand specific performance from gov't pursuant to its provisions.
    And, I might add, the Supreme Court has ruled that when a court makes a
    ruling contrary to the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is
    bound to obey it.

    It always astonishes me when people express their apparent belief that
    rights exist only to the extent some gov't branch or agency authorizes them!

    FS> Have there been any supreme court cases addressing this issue???

    Yes, there have, by the Supreme Court "packed" by F.D.R., who got very upset
    because the previous Supreme Court had struck down some of his pet
    collectivist ideas as being unConstitutional.  These decisions by F.D.R.'s
    pet Court are widely regarded, by legal professionals on both sides of the
    individualist/collectivist issue, as being poorly researched, poorly
    written, and as having ignored any of the basic issues the Court should have
    taken up in their consideration.

    Message: 81088
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Oh, yes we will...
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:19:38

    FS> If the Banksters and all are as powerfull and in control as ARCH, and
    you
    FS> seem to think, you will never win anyways.

    Oh, yes we will.  We will win because the fraudulent system created and
    exploited by those bozos is about to self-destruct, as any such system based
    upon fraud eventually must.  "You can fool some of the people some of the
    time ...", etc.

    Message: 81089
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Woops...
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 19:50:17

    Well, I didn't quite do this as fast as I thought.  I pulled the same trick
    Fred did and had to go back and reformat all the files I'm uploading
    tonight.  And then I had to re-write my ascii translation tables.  But it
    doesn't look like anyone has been in here yet, so I guess now I'll see if
    what I did works.  If there are no messages besides this one, then I made a
    hash of it.

    Message: 81090
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: FRED SMITH
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:18:40

    FS> - if the gvt establishes the equation between GOLD and FRN's then the
    FS> GVT IS establishing the value of those two things in relation to each
    FS> other.

    That is not the same as establishing the value of either one in the
    marketplace.

    FS> In the case of your example of the MARKET setting the value of gold,
    FS> that is certainly true.

    Thank you!

    FS> What you ignore is that the MARKET also establishes the value of the
    FRN.

    So?

    FS> Why , oh Why, do you insist that the GVT now return to establishing
    FS> the MARKET equation between FRNs and GOLD?????

    I'm not.  If gov't would again honor the law defining the "U.S. Dollar" as
    X-amount of gold, I'd be perfectly happy to let the market set the equation
    between frns and gold.  I don't think you would be happy, though; people
    would discover, virtually overnight, the truth that frns are intrinsically
    worthless.

    FS> It's amazing to me how you can attack the gvt at every turn but when it
    FS> comes to your HOLY GRAIL, gold, you want the GVT to be the entity
    FS> estbablishing it's market value.

    I don't, and under a Constitutional monetary system of gold and/or silver
    standard, gov't doesn't.  Again, you refuse to separate the concepts of
    "frns" and "dollars."  What you say would be true only if frns were in fact
    dollars, and they are not.

    Also, gold is not my "Holy Grail."  Gold represents honest money to me, and
    honest exchange for my labor, which is my basic intrinsic "wealth" in this
    society.  I demand that my labor, which is the only intrinsic wealth I have,
    be exchanged in the marketplace for a substance of equal value.  It seems to
    me that while you may not feel your labor is worth anything (I don't know;
    maybe you don't expend any of it, and that's why), *your* "Holy Grail"
    appears to be worthless frns representing debt.  It seems a rather hollow
    form of wealth.

    FS> To follow your logic you would have the gvt issuing FRNs denominated
    FS> in "dollars" but not worth their face value.

    On the contrary, that is what is being done now.  Follow my logic, Fred: I
    want gov't to mint "Dollars."  Not frns.  (Though I don't care if gov't or
    the bankers issue frns not worth their face value, which they are doing now,
    as long as they issue "U.S. Dollars" as defined by law and make "U.S.
    Dollars" as defined by law "legal tender in payment of all debts, public and
    private."  If gov't will do that, frns will disappear anyway because you
    won't be able to buy anything with them; they won't be worth anything.  I
    won't mourn their departure, but I won't care if the banksters want to keep
    on wasting printers' ink and paper.)

    FS> You'd pull out your FRNs and he'd say, "Hmm, let's see now, what are
    FS> those babies going for these days. Let me look it up.  Ah, yes, that
    FS> will be 37.43 FRN's."

    To begin with, had gov't begun minting real dollars, and had gov't made them
    legal tender in payment for debt (that is the scenario we are talking
    about), I wouldn't pull out any frns because I would know better.  But if
    *you* pull out your frns and offer them in payment for shoes, the proprietor
    isn't going to say "what are those babies going for these days", he's going
    to say "Sorry, Bub.  We don't accept worthless trash for our quality
    products.  We only accept real dollars.  We have real people working here
    who are exchanging their real labor of real value *for* real value in the
    marketplace, and they lawfully and Constitutionally have a right to real
    wealth in exchange for their valuable labor, and they deserve to pass a
    portion of that wealth on to their children, instead of lumbering them up
    with debt."

    Well, most likely he wouldn't say all that.  Most likely he'd just give you
    the boot where it would do you the most good for insulting him.

    FS> It seems you want someone to agree to pay you for 1991 value in terms
    FS> of golds value in 1913.

    Considering that one "U.S. Dollar" in gold today is more valuable than one
    Federal Reserve Note which is fraudulently called a dollar today, and this
    was also true in 1913, and that in both cases the frn is worth
    zippety-do-dah, you're darned right I want someone to agree to pay me (for
    my labor) in U.S. Dollars (gold).  If he doesn't want to agree to that, then
    he expects something for nothing from me.

    FS> Of course no one would enforce that sort of contract.

    Of course not; not when gov't enforces fraudulent contracts requiring people
    to work for nothing but debt.  Of course this *is* government-legalized
    fraud, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

    Ar> One hundred and twenty-six years of zero inflation.  ONE HUNDRED AND
    Ar> TWENTY-SIX YEARS OF ZERO INFLATION.

    FS> From Fred  --- Oh Geez....  Is that the "zero inflation" you talked
    FS> about before with all the if ands or buts about "well we have to ignore
    FS> this" and "we can't include that, it's hard to get data for it" and
    FS> making no allowance for the tremendous impovements in "like" kinds of
    FS> things then and now???

    No, it's not.  The fraudulent debt-money system we endure today wasn't in
    existence, thank God, for the one hundred and twenty-six years between the
    ratification of our Constitution and 1913, which was the year the Federal
    Reserve Bank was illegally chartered by Roosevelt's cronies.  It therefore
    did not create the distortions I spoke of when I compared the purchasing
    power of gold in 1913 to the purchasing power of gold today, which I said
    was "pretty much the same" with a few distortions caused by fraudulent frns.

    And I'm certain that, while you are certainly misguided, you *are* bright
    enough to know the difference between those two arguments I presented.

    The "zero inflation" to which I referred above was the "zero inflation" our
    country had under a gold and silver standard, during the greatest period of
    improvement in the living standard of the working class in 18 centuries, and
    during which the cost of living for everyone went down, and the quality of
    "like kinds of things" as you put it -- all manner of consumer goods -- went
    up.

    FS> From someone else in the R&G>>    Inability to prove a conspiracy is in
    FS> itself proof of the conspiracy.  (said with TIC)

    I'm surprised to hear you say that; I thought you were claiming the position
    of those fat dumb and happy sheeple who believed that the assertion of a
    conspiracy was proof that it did not exist.

    FS> From People Like Fred>>>  FS> the yearly budget (if memory serves, and
    it may not) it could be easily wiped out from current income.

    Oh?  Well, after you wipe out the principle, what are you going to pay the
    interest with?  C'mon, Fred, wake up.  That's another one of those carefully
    massaged gov't numbers; all it means is that the "collateral taxing power"
    of the U.S. gov't is 70% greater than the current national debt.  In other
    words, gov't could tax every single frn out of circulation and still have
    70% of its taxing power available.  Of course, it couldn't collect any more
    frns, because no more would be available, so it would have
    to accept barter -- you know what barter is, I'm sure: houses, land,
    personal possessions, labor, slaves ... etc.  You get the picture.

    FS> IN fact, I do believe that Congress has more then once put together
    FS> budgets that would, if followed, have taken care of it.  It requires
    FS> reductions in welfare, and entitlement programs, and some other stuff
    FS> and when push comes to shove then just won't make those cuts.

    No, it wouldn't have taken care of it, for the aforementioned reasons (it
    *can't* take care of it; the debt including the interest is greater than all
    the frns in circulation; in fact, it is greater than all the property in
    U.S. hands); however, Congress has more than once 'supposedly' put together
    budgets which addressed reductions in welfare, and entitlement programs,
    etc., but won't make those cuts.  One reason is that the advertised budget
    was not the budget that was passed; the advertised budget was the facade to
    make the politicians look good.  Another reason is that under a system which
    cannot be paid off without giving up the whole country and *all* its wealth
    to the foreign bankers, why even try?  It's easier to keep up pretenses and
    keep running up the debt than it is to pay the piper -- so long as that is
    *possible,* which it won't be much longer.  Another reason is that attempts
    to significantly reduce the debt load draws furrowed eyebrows, one might
    even say 'frowns,' from the banksters looking toward Congress.  Reducing the
    debt load reduces the banksters' political
    power over gov't, and that is a no-no.  Any Congressman advocating that will
    shortly find himself in the gutter without a constituency, and if he doesn't
    exit gracefully he'll find himself in jail on trumped up IRS charges.
    Remember George Hanson?

    FS> What's "wrong" with this country isn't the monetary system, it is the
    FS> tax and spend syndrome our national "leaders" are afflicted with.

    All national (and State and Local, too) leaders are *always* afflicted with
    the "tax and spend syndrome."  Anyone with any common sense knows that going
    in.  The founders of our country knew it; that's why they created a
    Constitution which placed taxing and spending beyond the reach of the
    legislators.  They simply can't do it under the Constitutional monetary
    standard the framers of the Constitution (specifically, Roger Sherman, who
    wrote the economic provisions of the Constitution) compelled.  That is why
    gov't was under such a tremendous incentive to get around that
    Constitutional standard and impose one, illegally, which allowed them to
    satisfy that craving.  (They could not have imposed one legally, and their
    game would have been exposed for all to see if they had tried.)

    FS> Many have worked 90 hour weeks for year after year so that finally they
    FS> can take a vacation for 6 months after not having one for 6 years.

    Now it's my turn to say "how noble."  And I am not disparaging those who
    work as you describe; I am disparaging you for playing this "how noble" game
    when that is not what you SAID.  What you SAID was "... who spend 6 mos out
    of every year in Tahiti?  And *consistently* do so year after year after
    year?"  (And *that* person, in my view, is a parasite.)

    Don't pull that kind of crap, Fred.  It doesn't become you and it weakens
    your credibility.  I want my arguments to prevail on their merits and so far
    they do; I don't need to win this debate by default.

    FS> From Scum of the Earth...>>

    Well, if you say so.

    FS> What you characterize as sound arguments are what I would characterize
    FS> as something far less.

    Then prove it.  Address my arguments, then.  Do your research and marshall
    your facts and present a superior argument for your position.  Don't expect
    to ignore the facts and arguments I have presented, re-assert your original
    unsupported premise, and walk away with everyone nodding in agreement with
    your position.  With few exceptions among those who have a modicum of
    superficial book learning and no discernible methodology or experience in
    the real world, it ain't gonna happen.

    FS> The rest of your statements above are typical of your blind allegations
    FS> and mindless attacks and general invective against anyone and anything
    FS> that fails to conform to your world view.

    Oh?  blind allegations?  mindless attacks?  general invective?  It seems to
    me I'm the one who has been presenting facts and figures and documentation
    and historical research for consideration here; I haven't heard a darned
    thing from you but unsupported and self-serving premises and a few
    undocumented generalizations that don't hold up under close examination --
    not even under distant examination.  And *you* are accusing *me* of blind
    allegations, mindless attacks, and general invective?  Who was it, here,
    just a few messages ago, mindlessly accused me of engaging in this debate
    for no other reason than the fact that I didn't like paying taxes?  Who is
    it who keeps blindly alleging the incredibly naive dictum that if we just
    had a (theoretically impossible) honest gov't everything would be
    hunky-dory?  Who is it who keeps referring to the "pointlessness" of
    demanding a gold standard?

    You know, the more I review our previous messages to and from each other,
    the more I think I should retract my half-hearted apology offered last night
    while wishing everyone a Happy New Year.  I haven't heard a shred of logical
    argument or documented fact from you since this debate started, and I am
    therefore left with the distinct feeling that you *don't* *have* any
    argument or facts marshalled for your position.  That leaves me with the
    strong suspicion that you have no legitimate reason for your position other
    than the fact that you *like* fraudulent debt-money out of cunning and
    unprincipled self-interest.  That means, to me, that the *question* I asked
    you -- not any allegation I made, or mindless attack, or general invective
    -- that the *question* I asked you: "Are you one profiting from the lie?" is
    a fair question.

    Of course, you don't have to answer; I fully support your right to be secure
    from being a witness against yourself.  I also support your right to believe
    anything you want to, regardless of how brilliant or how stupid it may be,
    so long as it doesn't infringe upon my inherited and unalienable rights and
    the same rights of my countrymen.  Unfortunately, this fraudulent debt money
    system does infringe upon everyone's rights, and I therefore will continue
    to challenge your support of it, or anyone else's support of it.  Of course,
    I fully support your right to voluntarily withdraw in defeat from that
    challenge if you so wish.

    Re:  Your message #81078, to Bill B/$$$$$$.

    Well, now, that was a nice explanation of your position.  It's too bad you
    didn't tell me that some time ago instead of trying to stonewall; we might
    not have become so acrimonious.  However, there remains a fallacy in your
    position:

    FS> Since the gvt does not issue "dollars" only FRNs and since FRNs are
    FS> denominated in "dollars" then they are, in any meaningfull sense, one
    FS> and the same.

    In the first place, gov't does not issue frns; the Federal Reserve Bank
    issues frns.  Since the Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation, they
    can call their worthless pieces of paper anything they want (unless there is
    intent to defraud) and they choose to call them "dollars."  Of course, there
    *is* intent to defraud, knowingly and wilfully to defraud, and so gov't has
    a responsibility to put a stop to it, but of course gov't benefits from the
    fraud and so it will not put a stop to it, which makes gov't a party to the
    fraud.

    Now, then: the fact that a private corporation calls their worthless scraps
    of paper "dollars" for the purpose of committing fraud (or for any other
    purpose) does not make them, "in any meaningful sense, one and the same"

    with "U.S. Dollars" as defined by law.  That makes no more sense than if I
    wrote the word "dollar" on a piece of paper and claimed that "in any
    meaningful sense, this dollar is one and the same" with a U.S. Dollar -- the
    claim would be ridiculous and counter to law.

    If you want to argue your free will to willingly be defrauded by these bozos
    behind the fraudulent and illegal frn, and to accomplish this end you
    willingly and knowingly and voluntarily choose to call a worthless piece of
    paper a "dollar," you will get no argument from me.  But I reserve the right
    to challenge your attempts to convince others that a falsehood is true so
    that they, too, may continue to be defrauded.

    FS> What he really wants is for the gvt to, in essense, start issueing (even
    FS> if they don't acutally put it in circulation) these things he thinks of
    FS> as "real dollars" and he figures that the "real dollars" will be far
    FS> more valuable then FRNs.

    You're right so far, except that I want them in circulation.  They do no one
    any good sitting in a warehouse at the Mint somewhere.  Also, I "think of
    these things" (gold dollars) as "real dollars" not merely because I choose
    to for my own benefit; I think of them as "real dollars" because they are
    the only thing the law calls a dollar.

    FS> And if the gvt did it the way he wants them to they would be far more
    FS> valuble, ...

    Well!  The light dawns!  ... Well, maybe it dawned some time ago, but you've
    been pretending ignorance because you didn't want to admit that I was right.

    FS> ... which would be exactly why they could not issue them -

    'WOULD' not issue them, at least not willingly.  They COULD do so very
    easily if they wished to obey the law and stop the fraud.

    FS> - the system would not make any sense.  You've two currencies in
    FS> circulation and with offical backing unless they have offically
    FS> maintained parity.

    I never said anything about "two currencies in circulation and with official
    backing."  I want the lawful currency in circulation with official backing.
    The other one can become bonfire fodder for all I care, and it would.

    FS> I understand what Arch wants but he ain't gonna get it.

    Hide and watch, friend.  Either I'm going to get it -- either we are all
    going to get an honest, Constitutional monetary standard back -- or there
    isn't going to be an economy worthy of the name in less than ten years.
    That's the nature of fraud -- sooner or later it self-destructs, and takes
    its' believers and supporters and hangers-on with it.

    Message: 81106
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Whew!
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:36:40

    Okay, everyone can come back on line.  I know that hurt you more than it did
    me.

    Fred, let's take a break for a day or two, if you agree; give the other poor
    people a chance to put a cold pack on their eye-bobs.

    Message: 81107
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Guest Column
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:37:35

    Someone here said congratulations might be in order for me for my "Guest
    Column" published in the Arizona Repugnant.  Sorry, I will have to decline
    the congratulations at least so far; to my knowledge I do not have a "Guest
    Column" published.  When I read that, I went racing to the January 1st
    paper, and then the December 31st paper; didn't find anything in either one
    that I had written or that even sounded like something I would write.

    I *do* have two submissions in to the paper at the present time; one of them
    might have made a Guest Column but I doubt they will do that, and the other
    was just a letter to the editor.  In any event they have not contacted me to
    clear either one of them.  If either one was in there, I missed it.  Does
    anyone have more information?

    Message: 81108
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Insurance?
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:38:32

    RW> A few weeks ago I mentioned that a friend of mine from California told
    RW> me he had full coverage on his 80's Toyoto P/U (a high theft vehicle)
    RW> for $50. per month.  What I forgot to say is that he and I have the
    RW> same insurance company, AAA.

    You know, everyone here claims the insurance rates are so high.  I pay 40
    frns a month for insurance on two 1980's vehicles, one of which has full
    coverage.  That's less than I was paying in California.

    Message: 81109
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: SysOp Bill
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 21:22:19

    OK, I did flame a little.  It was out of line.  On the other hand, so were
    Archimedes' remarks to Fred Smith (as quote by Fred in one of his messages).
    That's what ticked me off.  Anyway, I said what I wanted to say and don't
    see the need to add any more.  As far as editing the messages, I can't edit
    in place and I don't think anyone really wants to read them again.  Nor do I
    wish someone else editing my messages.  If you feel they are too offensive
    to be left on the board you may go ahead and delete them and no hard
    feelings.

    My remarks about his guest column were essentially tongue in cheek.
    However, there were a remarkable number of parallels between the author of
    that column (I think his name was Conrad Possebo, or something close to
    that) and Archimedes both in style and content.  I won't elaborate, because
    it might be considered a personal attack (in fact, I fail to understand how
    it could not be viewed as such).  The photograph of the guy looked just like
    I picture Archimedes, too (and no, I won't elaborate on that either).

    Message: 81110
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 21:28:47

    OK Rod, you've convinced me that the Order of the Holy Sock is the one, true
    path to righteousness.  Send me whatever icons (i.e., socks) you make
    available to your low level parishioners, along with a bottle of chloroform.

    P.S. Did you read about the people ("spinners") who worship the Grateful
    Dead, and particularly, Jerry Garcia?

    P.P.S.  I hope your socks are authentic.  I have a jar of "genuine Buddha
    fingernails" large enough to fill a minivan.  And they say Buddha is a
    saint!  What about his manicurist?!!

    Message: 81111
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Matlock
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 21:55:38

    Well tonight the tab is 49K of new messages since my last log-on at 1:30
    this morning.  What a book.

    Having read "The Three Faces of Eve" I keep getting this impression that
    Fred Smith and Archimedes are one and the same body.  The two of them take
    turns using that same body and I'll bet that there are some mighty large
    callouses on his hands.  He probably has to take 'biker methadrine' in order
    to type all those messages.

    As to the official sock religion, you are in.  Please forward a one time
    charge of $429. which will give you a lifetime membership.  This membership
    gives you the right to worship on any monday after sundown.  If you would
    care to purchase more than one lifetime membership then do so.  Each
    membership gives you the right to sniff of the gods on different days.
    Sorry, no Sunday worshipping allowed.

    Well I'd better get reading if I want to sleep tonight.

                                    Rod

    Message: 81112
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: GOLD
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 22:28:21

    Some random thoughts on the idea of a gold based monetary standard...
           Who do you suppose has to pay for all the gold that is needed to
    have that Gold money if the money is to be issued by the gvt and backed by
    gold??  Is all that gold going to just materialize out of thin air?  Or
    will the equivalent in taxes need to be collected to buy the gold out of
    which the money is to be made?  And if the only money *is* gold, then you
    have a round robin.  You have to have not only the Gold money, but an
    equal amount of gold sitting in gvt vaults to back it, that is, the gvt
    has to have the gold in order to issue the gold.
           Or you could get rid of HALF of that gold by having the gvt put the
    gold in vaults and issueing gold certificates for use as currency.  Or you
    could eliminate half the gold by NOT requireing the gvt to put the
    equivalent gold amount in a vault and simply let the issued coins "back
    themselves".  Neither, of course, eliminates the need for the gvt to
    acquire the gold in the first place.  So there is STILL the need for the
    gvt to collect as much in taxes as they issue in gold if the currency is
    ONLY to be that issued by the gvt.  There could, of course, be non-gvt
    gold out there in use as currency but that would violate the constitution
    since only the FEDs have the right to coin money.

           So it would seem we have a bit of a conundrum, not unlike the one
    faced by this country originally - How do you have "backed" currency
    without somehow aquireing the backing??  And where do you turn to aquire
    that backing?  The only place "we" can turn is to "ourselves" of course.
    We have to TAX ourselves to "pay" for this gold standard.  As should be
    rather obvious, that is not a very desirable state of affairs; to have a
    billion dollars of money circulating we have to tax ourselves a billion
    dollars and all we would have to show for it is a bunch of metal pieces
    that we hand back and forth to each other.  And either we continually
    DEFLATE (each piece of metal becomes worth MORE) the currency as the
    economy (and population) expands or we have to tax ourselves more and more
    and more to provide a "stable" currency in enough quantity to go around.
           There *is* a partial solution of course - we can start talking of
    only fractional backing for our currency, that is, instead of putting the
    "real thing" (no not coke, but gold coins) out as currency, we start
    putting out sandwich coins, or "alloyed" coins.  We deviate from the idea
    that each coin is worth (please bow down) ONE TRUE DOLLAR OF REAL VALUE
    and say that each coin is "worth" a dollar but only has some fractional
    dollar's worth of gold in it.

    If we trust the gvt to NEVER EVER change the fractional value then, at
    least in theory, we have no worry once we make the change.  We can all
    sleep at night knowing that our money is "stable" as long as we are
    willing to continue to tax ourselves enough to keep buying MORE gold to
    satisfy the increasing need for currency as the economy expands.
    Naturally, we would require ALL banks to only make loans in amounts no
    greater then the amount of REAL money in their vaults, otherwise they
    would be adding to the money supply and we can't have that, it would mess
    up our "stable" currency if there were other "funny" forms of "equivalent
    currency" out there in the form of deposits created from merely unbacked
    loans and drawn thru the use of checks rather then REAL money.
      As you may be getting the idea, the choice in a growing country will
    boil down to either tax after tax after tax to support a FULLY backed
    currency OR abandonment of the absolute "gold" standard to a fractional
    standard.  And of course, once people find that a fractional standard
    works, as it clearly does in just about EVERY country on the face of the
    globe, they will not be eager to continue paying taxes each year to
    support their "stable" currency and stop it from DEFLATING.  As you see,
    they never stop  paying taxes to prevent the monetary deflation that would
    otherwise ocurr on a fixed "standard" in a growing economy. (And do not
    mistake "growing" with "inflating")

    A growing economy means that MORE people are entering it, that more
    factories are coming on line, that MORE money is therefore needed in
    circulation.
           As could be expected to happen, the allure of continued
    fractionalization of the "standard" to AVOID collection of taxes to
    support the Money (gold) standard will be hard to resist.  Particularly
    since there is really NO difference between a FULL GOLD STANDARD and any
    GIVEN fractional standard as long as one sticks with whatever one one has
    chosen.  It is only when the "standard", whatever it happens to be,
    changes, that a "monetary problem" is generated.  Since we have NO backing
    anymore, there is no longer any chance of change in the standard.
    Aside of course from the change in the backing of "The full faith of
    and in the US gvt.
       Is that "bad"?  Not in and of itself.  A Responsible gvt would not put
    more money into circulation then the economy needs and at least when they
    do put more in they don't take the equivalent amount from you in taxes to
    do so (or the fractional amount under a fractional system).  And as you
    might be noticing, having to TAX you to pay for this GOLD standard is in
    and of itself TAKING YOUR WEALTH AWAY.!! (and locking it in a vault.)

           As I hope you are begining to see, the FULL standard and NO
    standard are just ends of the spectrum; at one end you have
    non-productive taxes needed to support it and at the other end you don't.
    As I have tried to show, the Gold standard is not "Free", it has to be
    paid for with taxes and if you don't want DEFLATION of the money as the
    economy grows you can expect continued taxes that do NOTHING but fill gvt
    vaults with yellow metal.
           The PROBLEM is NOT that we don't have a GOLD standard; the problem
    is that the gvt spends more money then it collects in taxes and has to
    borrow "money" to do so.  The reason they are borrowing the money (from
    us) is that it is easier then TAXING us.  If that is the case, as seems
    obvious to me, then why would anyone imagine that the gvt could possibly
    provide the needed TAX support for that gold standard.  Clearly they would
    not support it, they would allow the gold money to deflate (become more
    valuble) with the result that the economy would cease to grow, recession
    would ensue, and they would all shortly be out of office.  If that sounds
    familiar it may be because that is the chain of events that lead to the
    abandonment of the gold standard!

    Message: 81117
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: mathematical puzzle
    Date: 01/02/92  Time: 22:46:59

    What set of numbers does the following function define:

    f(m,n) = 1/2(m^2 + n^2 + 2mn - 3m - n + 2)

    ,where the domain (m and n) is the set of all natural numbers (i.e. positive
    integers).

    Message: 81118
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Matlock
    Date: 01/03/92  Time: 00:29:01

    I read the article about the Grateful Dead after logging off.  It was
    interesting.  I've never been to a Dead concert but I've taken acid.

    Message: 81119
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Gold
    Date: 01/03/92  Time: 00:30:26

    If a dollar was backed by gold would there be enough gold to back the
    dollar?

    Wouldn't gold producers have an unfair advantage since only the
    wealthy would be gold producers on a large scale?

    If the dollar was backed by gold how would those lost dollars be
    dealt with?  Fire, flood, and other disasters would destroy millions of
    dollars annually.

    Couldn't we just start the economy over after declaring bankruptcy?  The
    national debt would then be zero.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.