### Apollo BBS Archive - January 9, 1992

    Mail from Pete Fischer
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 02:20:48

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

    As you now know, Petrisko was  not involved. At least, not in person!
    pete
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Hey, I know you.

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 8803
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Felix-Shooting
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 09:05:07

    > A convicted criminal currently serving a prison term for armed
    > robbery won $60,000 in a lawsuit.  He contended that police
    > used "excessive force" in shooting him when he fled the crime
    > scene with shotgun in hand.

    Good for the criminal!  The police had no business using lethal force unless
    they had some reason to believe he posed an immediate danger.  A jury
    apparently weighed the facts of this case and decided in the "bad guy's"
    favor.  There's even a U.S. Supreme Court decision (I can't remember the
    plaintiff's name, but it's a Tennessee case.) to guide them.

    Message: 8804
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green's @$$
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 10:04:46

            You may need to watch your @$$... but I am not in the least bit
    worried.  I do not play the field....  Do you?

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

    Message: 8805
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green's war
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 10:10:31

            A gun war...and a knife war and a ice pic war and a rock war and
    so on and so on....  Guns don't kill people by themselves...  If I wanted to
    kill someone... I probably would not even use a gun myself, there are MANY
    otherways.  If guns were banned... I bet there would be more CRIME and more
    knife killings raising that number even higher.  Why?  Because criminals
    would not fear the victems 'MIGHT' be armed and there would be more face to
    face crime.  The criminal of course would have a gun or a knife.  The law
    abiding citizen would be dead or mutilated.

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

    Message: 8806
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Bill 4 the criminal
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 10:22:55

            What would you do with a criminal that had a shotgun in hand?
    A shot gun can shoot anything from SLUGs to rock-salt.  The police were
    armed with hand guns.   Do you know what a 'slug' can do Bill?  Do you know
    what buck-shot can do Bill?  Do you know how quickly a person can get sight
    alignment with a shot gun?  If it has slugs, do you know the range?

            Some jurys have been tricked into bad judgements by slick lawyers.

            If you took a 'combat' shotgun class out at the range (USMA) you
    might think otherwise.  I would take a shotgun over a handgun where I could
    'load on demand'.  Or do you know what 'load on demand' means...  I doubt it
    and I doubt the jury did either.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- bah...humbug!

    Message: 8807
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Unbelievable stories
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:33:12

    The problem with the woman who dropped the cigarettes into her blouse is
    that her story just *could* be true.  People *have* forgotten things like
    that in a moment of distraction.  (I've accidentally walked out of a store
    with something in the past; though I did notice it and go back to pay for
    it.)  On the other hand, it's the easiest thing in the world for a thief to
    make up a story like that.  Was this woman convicted or not?

    If somebody's appearance is damaged by negligence, even temporarily (and it
    will take at least year and a half for nine inches of hair to grow back), I
    think they're entitled to compensation.  $10,000 is too high though.  And
    why didn't the guy see in the mirror what the dumb stylist was doing wrong?

    Serious discussions about topics like the criminal who was shot are
    fruitless without a lot of ifs and buts and second-guessing and assumptions,
    because we haven't heard all the facts in the case.  Anybody waving a
    shotgun around is potentially dangerous, and I wouldn't blame a cop for
    thinking it was better to be safe than sorry.  But if the guy was running
    away and they shot him in the back, that would be different.

    Message: 8808
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:34:54

    A 32% increase in AIDS deaths for 1989 does look frightening, but against
    this we have to balance the fact that AIDS usually takes several years to
    kill.  So a 32% increase in death rate for 1989 reflects a similar increase
    in the infection rate some years earlier -- which was before a lot of the
    campaigns for safe sex and so forth had really hit their stride.  With AIDS,
    at least it's possible to predict the maximum death rate a few years ahead.
    (I say "maximum" because there's always the chance of finding more effective
    treatments that would reduce this death rate.)  More interesting than the
    increase in AIDS deaths is the increase in the number of new people testing
    HIV positive.  This gives us a more up-to-date picture of what to expect.

    I was interested to see that only 2,150,000 people died in 1989.  I expected
    to see more, out of 250 million.  The population must be noticeably weighted
    by younger people.

    Message: 8809
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics (II
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:36:22

    Gun deaths could be reduced all the way to zero if guns were eliminated.
    But don't forget, all deaths by homicide could be reduced to zero if killers
    were eliminated.  Now does anyone have any *useful* suggestions?

    Washington DC banned firearms ownership.  Wanna guess which city has the
    worst murder rate in the nation?  I'll give you a clue: it begins with a
    "W".  New York City bans handguns, and its murder rate runs close behind.
    The murder rate (including the firearms murder rate) has climbed steadily in
    the UK over the past quarter century, precisely over the period that
    firearms ownership has become more and more restricted.

    A city in Georgia, on the other hand, experienced a drop in crime when it
    passed a law *mandating* firearms ownership.  In Florida, a police-sponsored
    firearms training program for citizens drew a huge response, and after due
    publicity also caused a drastic drop in the crime rate.

       >>If we can have a drug war, why not a gun war?

    After looking at the drug war, I think that question answers itself.

    If anyone has a proposal for restricting gun ownership by citizens, write it
    in a letter, along with the reasons why you think it might work.  Put it in
    an envelope addressed to PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON,
    DC.  Then just stick a stamp on it and drop it into the nearest wastebasket.

    Message: 8810
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:38:42

    I'd be interested myself to know what rock salt out of a shotgun does.  I'd
    imagine it could be lethal at close range.  I'd also imagine it would be
    very hard on barrels -- especially if you don't clean them afterwards.

    Message: 8811
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: AIDS
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 18:55:32

      You guys are getting all upset about the wrong figure. It's that #7
    killer, diabetes you should worry about. It already has a big jump on AIDS
    in the number of people it kills per year, and it is increasing at MORE THAN
    %13 A YEAR. Obviously we will all be dead of diabetes long before AIDS can
    kill us. We should hire a small gymnasium and get ZZ TOP to put on a
    diabetes benefit concert.
    t(  See YOu Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 8812
    Author: $ Gary Jones
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: rock salt
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:31:50

    don't know what the results are at close range, but it itches like heck, and
    stings on application.  leaves a rather interesting tattoo on the back and
    behind, too.

    Message: 8813
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Bill 4 the criminal
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 08:00:46

    It's possible if you heard ALL the evidence in the case you *might* have a
    different opinion.  Newspaper reports are often not very complete.  It's
    possible that the guy was running all right and carrying a shotgun but that
    doesn't mean he was actually threatening the officer.  There may have been
    other officers who could have assisted in a less damaging manner.  He may
    have been running into a know blind alley.  If a Jury was willing to pay him
    there must have been something more to the story then we have heard,
    although perhaps not enough to change our or your mind about the outcome.

    Message: 8814
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Guns/Wash/NY
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 08:38:48

    You have given more credence to the reason why guns must be banned
    nationally. Since it is obvious that guns are easy to get in Washington and
    NY city we must make sure that gun ownership is criminalized in the entire
    country. This way, we can arrest people who sell guns and put them in jail
    for 20 years for each offense, and perhaps institute the death penalty for
    big dealers in guns.

    If guns are imported from foreign countries, we can work with the
    governments of those countries to outlaw gun ownership and manufacture
    there. Then, little by little, all guns will be destroyed worldwide.

    Message: 8815
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Cliff Shoots Off
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 09:21:31

    Cliff, if you, as an expert marksman and normally rational person, are not
    allowed to shoot a fleeing felon, why should a police officer?  That, you
    see, is the key:  The bad guy was FLEEING.

    Message: 8816
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Guns
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:22:40

    It's a pipe dream to imagine that "all guns will be destroyed worldwide".
    Guns will always be used -- by police, byt the military.  And they *will*
    get into criminal hands.

    Even a nationwide gun ban in the U.S. won't keep guns out of Washington.
    There are very tight firearms laws in Great Britain, which is an ISLAND, yet
    guns get into criminal hands there anyway.

    Besides, why should the REST of the United States have to put up with
    restrictions because cesspools of crime like Washington and New York can't
    behave themselves?  The cities made their own social problems.  It's up to
    them to solve them, not dump them on the rest of the country.  If we have to
    have a solution to guns getting into Washington from outside, then let them
    put a fence around the place and check people going in and out.

    Message: 8817
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 1/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:23:49

    Well, the GOOD news is that I think the Arizona Republic made an error in
    the figure that Felix quoted for us.  Unless they had some other measurement
    in mind, the 22,082 deaths from AIDS in 1989 was not a 32% increase from the
    previous year, but a 22% increase.  It looks like a simple typo in the Az.R.

    Green Lantern mentioned that a 32% growth rate doubles the original figure
    in a little over two years, and I pointed out that the figure to be
    concerned about is the increase in new infections.  OK, so the increase in
    death rate for 1989 was only 22% instead of 32%.  I don't have a figure for
    the number of new infections, though I made a guesstimate (figures marked
    with a *) based on part year figures, and found the increase in new
    infections might be somewhat lower: just under 17%.  I've shown the table of
    AIDS statistics below.  But the BAD news is to follow.

                   1981   1982   1983   1984   1985   1986   1987   1988   1989
                  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
    No. diagnosed   298   1076   2933   5926  11038  17777  25987  29761  34770*
    Growth factor    -   2.770  2.726  2.021  1.863  1.611  1.462  1.145  1.168*
    Total diagnosed 298   1374   4307  10233  21271  39048  65035  94796 129566*
    No. deaths      129    440   1438   3257   6473  11046  14646  18101  22082
    Growth factor    -   3.411  3.268  2.265  1.987  1.706  1.326  1.236  1.220
    Total deaths    129    569   2007   5264  11737  22783  37429  55530  77612
    Total living    169    805   2300   4969   9534  16265  27606  39266  51954*
    "Infection rate" -   6.367  3.643  2.576  2.221  1.865  1.597  1.078  0.885*

    Message: 8818
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 2/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:24:40

    The rate of increase in both new infections and deaths from AIDS has been
    steadily dropping, but now it seems to be bottoming out and even on the
    upturn.  Analyzing exactly what's happening is *extremely* complicated, and
    it's made even more so by underreporting, time lags between infection and
    diagnosis, the fact that AIDS patients with treatment seem to be living
    longer than they used to, behavior changes, and so forth.  But I think those
    17% and 22% figures are misleading with respect to the future trend.  I made
    a stab at calculating an AIDS "infection rate" based on ratio of new cases
    to infected patients left alive the previous year, and while this "infection
    rate" is continuing to fall, it's more like 88% than 22%.  The rate of
    increase in new cases could rise to meet it in the next few years, and the
    figures might look something like what's below.  I tried to be pessimistic
    (no drop in "infection rate"), but my assumptions may be wrong, because the
    CDC's estimate of AIDS cases and deaths for 1992 looks even worse than mine.

                      1990   1991   1992   1993  1992 CDC est.
                      ----   ----   ----   ----  -------------
    No. diagnosed    45979  61979  88334 157603    80000
    Growth factor    1.322  1.348  1.425  1.784
    Total diagnosed 175545 237524 325858 483461   360000
    No. deaths       27900  32200  40370  53979
    Growth factor    1.263  1.154  1.254  1.337
    Total deaths    105512 137712 178082 232061   260000
    Total living     70033  99812 147776 251400  [100000]

    Message: 8819
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 3/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:25:43

    This is all extremely rough, and there are some points I don't understand at
    all: in particular, how come the CDC's estimate of total AIDS cases
    diagnosed (360,000) is so high when their estimate of new cases for 1992 is
    only 80,000.  But it gives us some idea of the size of the problem.

    What IS the problem?  Simply this.  It's all very well to say that AIDS
    killed "only" 22,082 people in 1989, out of 100 times as many altogether.
    But the two leading causes of death -- heart disease and cancer -- kill out
    of all proportion to the others.  Heart disease killed about 720,000;
    cancer, about 490,000.  Stroke came a poor third, perhaps 142,000.  All
    three of these are, in the main, killers of older people.  I'm not saying
    for one moment that we don't want to prolong people's lives, and I'm
    certainly not saying we shouldn't fight cancer.  Cancer is generally a far
    worse death than the other two.  But if you live long enough, the chances
    are that one of these three is going to get you anyway!

    Why is the cancer death rate up?  Is this cause for concern?  Not at all!
    In all probability, the cancer death rate is up simply because the death
    rates from heart disease and stroke are down -- and something else has to
    take their place.  Considering that heart disease is down 6.3% and stroke is
    down 5.7% (these are *big* improvements for a single year), I'd say the fact
    that cancer deaths are up only 0.2% proves conclusively that we're also
    advancing in the war against cancer.

    Message: 8820
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 4/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:26:43

    Lower death statistics are trumpeted in the newspaper partly because they
    help pander to people's futile fantasy that maybe they're never going to
    die.  I'm all for eliminating cancer.  But what happens if nobody dies from
    heart disease or stroke any more, either?  What *are* they going to die of?
    A whole battery of rare things, some of them perhaps very painful?  Are they
    going to linger on while their bodies shut down piece by piece and they're
    reduced to vegetables?  Or perhaps, as the poet Rupert Brooke wrote:

         And when they get to feeling old,
         They up and shoot themselves, I'm told.

    Well, there's a lot of worse things than controlling your own destiny.

    The trouble with statistics is that even when they're not deliberately
    misleading, people look at them superficially and don't think about what
    they really mean.

    For example, people talk about "preventing" deaths from some cause or
    another.  There *is no such thing* as "preventing" death.  We can only
    *delay* death.  We may delay it by a few weeks, or a year.  If we prevent
    SIDS, on the other hand, we'll probably delay it for about 80 years.  It's
    the *untimely* deaths of otherwise healthy and happy people that are most
    worth delaying.  (And that does include cancer, which hits the young also.)

    Message: 8821
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 5/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:27:53

    At the same time, what are the causes of "untimely" death?  Trouble in the
    lungs, problems in the pancreas, livers rotting away?  But the leading cause
    is accidents.  They killed 94,000 people in 1989.  Now we can chip away at
    accidents here and there, but it's a pretty slow process.  Between 1900 and
    1987, the percentage of people killed by accidents has remained virtually
    unchanged, up from 4.4% to 4.5%.  That's quite amazing.  What makes it more
    surprising is that motor vehicle accidents, virtually nonexistent in 1900,
    accounted for half of all accidental deaths in recent years -- though they
    are now going down.  All other types of accidents have halved during the
    same time period, so that the total remains for all purposes unchanged.

    Is this truly just happenstance?  I think we adjust the way we conduct our
    lives to some level of risk that makes us feel comfortable.  The accident
    rate didn't actually remain unchanged over the entire period.  It increased
    by about half, peaking around the thirties and forties, mainly because road
    accidents were added to all the other kinds.  Since then, we've worked to
    reduce the other kinds.  But a large number of accidents happen because we
    can't waste all of our lives worrying about every piddling thing that
    *might* go wrong.  Besides, a life with no risk at all would be impossibly
    humdrum.  Many accidents happen because of risks that people consciously
    choose to take, such as in some sports.  When risk levels drop too low,
    people actually *create* risk to make their lives more interesting.  It's
    probably futile to dream of total victory in the battle against accidental
    death.  If we eliminate road deaths, something else will take their place.

    Message: 8822
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 6/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:28:54

    Another major cause of death is suicide.  Suicide killed over 30,000 people
    in 1989.  It dropped slightly, which is good news; but it's the eighth
    leading cause of death.  What bothers me about suicide is that while
    accidental deaths have remained the same since 1900, the suicide rate has
    more than doubled.  Suicide communicates the message that life is not worth
    living.  Apart from local fluctuations, almost all of that increase took
    place between 1920 and 1940.  What happened during this time that ruined so
    many people's lives?  The Depression?  Possibly, since suicide had dipped a
    little by 1960, and the 50s were a time of prosperity.  But what did we lose
    some time after 1920 that we've never managed to regain since then?  Could
    it be the power to control our own lives that government has slowly sapped
    away?  Whatever it is, the rising suicide rate is a vote of no confidence.

    Homicide is even more worrying.  It increased 4.4% in 1989, but since 1900
    its rate has increased by a factor of ten overall.  Yet it was common enough
    in the crowded slums of the 1800s.  Frontier lawlessness notwithstanding,
    homicide has always been a problem of cities.  The major change between 1900
    and today has been the crowding of people from more rural areas into cities;
    and it's still the biggest cities that have the worst crime problems today.

    Finally, there's AIDS.  A few years ago, it was nowhere.  In 1988, it was
    the 15th leading cause of death.  In 1989, it was 11th.  It killed as many
    people as homicide did; and homicide is a grave problem that we spend a lot
    of effort to combat -- along with the crime problem in general.

    Message: 8823
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Death statistics 7/7
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:29:51

    AIDS was responsible for 1% of deaths in 1989, but it caused a far greater
    percentage of *untimely* deaths.  And it's growing.  Last year, it killed
    more people than suicide.  By the end of next year, it will kill more people
    than road accidents.  Consider the ridiculous amount of money and effort
    wasted in the U.S. on trying to force people to drive unnaturally slowly.
    The only real decrease in road deaths was achieved by safety improvements in
    cars, and to a lesser extent, an attack on drunken driving.  Tens of
    millions of dollars are wasted on speed limit enforcement when other
    countries of the world get by with just as good results on far less.

    I can say the same ten times over about the hypocritical farce we call a
    "drug war".  How much money does it cost, and how many innocent people are
    victimized by it?  How many untimely deaths are actually delayed by it?
    Against that, how many untimely deaths are *caused* by it?  And why waste
    effort fighting "guns"?  AIDS now kills three times as many people as guns.

    We don't need to shortchange cancer research to fight AIDS.  If we can waste
    money on "drug wars" and suchlike, we can afford to spend it instead on
    research to prevent a disease that in less than five years may be the fourth
    leading cause of all deaths, and the *leading* cause of all untimely deaths.
    Of course, research isn't an occupation where lots of people get to throw
    their weight around and persecute others, or run other people's lives for
    them.  Instead, it's a productive job.  But apparently we'd rather spend
    money on gratifying people's lust for power than on anything productive.

    Message: 8824
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: War on Guns
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 13:45:52

    I would like to suggest that guns are easily available in Britain because we
    haven't seriously tried to get rid of drugs. With the new world order, we
    should be able to get rid of guns. What should be done is a serious effort
    by the US to stamp out gun manufacturing at the source.

    Message: 8825
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: Green/last
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 14:37:50

            I can MAKE a gun in a few hours.... I know other people who can make
    guns better than I....   Criminals can make guns too, and even sell these.
    Too think you could disarm the world and totaly do away with guns is silly!
    I suppose our army won't have guns?  The police?  Well, then what about
    knifes?   Big criminals now would have an easy time of it over weaker
    victims.  The 'gun' has been thought of as an 'equalizer', and yet,
    sometimes the guy with the knife...still wins.

            You have a right to your opinion, but I really think you are in a
    dream world if you think guns would vanish.  I would never turn in all my
    guns... so I would be a criminal... there would be more criminals then
    non-criminals.  You also invite the world governments to totaly enslave us.
    People like you with these 'noble' ideas to disarm citizens have opened the
    gates for more to be killed then would have been killed by guns in the first
    place.

            Guns do not cause crime...  People do!  There are less violent
    deaths now in modern times then in the days before guns when the
    Cossacks(sp) with swords and bows ran across Europe. Guns did not invent
    murder or violent death.  The inability to protect ones self from such
    tyranny made plundering so appealing and profitable.

    Message: 8826
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: guns
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 21:13:19

    Hey, Roger, don't forget the "this is your brain on guns" education
    campaign.

    (To all of you incensed at Roger's suggestions, go back and substitute the
    word 'drugs' for 'guns'.  To Cliff:  Many drugs are more easy to make than
    guns are.  Lots of them can even be GROWN and need nothing more to happen
    than to have the male and female plants separated, and ...)

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Guns

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Guns don't kill people, God kills people.
     2:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 8827

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 5298
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Bill
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:42:16

    Do you think that opinion of the Fan Belt Installers is justified, or is a
    lot of it due to turf battles?

    When you switched this discussion to COSmos, I thought you were going to
    tell me the "F" in "FBI" stood for something other than "Fan"...

    Message: 5299
    Author: $ Gary Jones
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Russ
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:34:20

    Who is Russ Whitney's dad?  I know some of the Glendale Whitneys, but don't
    know all their kids names.

    Message: 5300
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Russ' father
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 22:44:11

    Jack Whitney.  His sisters (in the valley) are Sherry (spelling?) and Amy.

    There may be other "Glendale Whitneys" -- these people are transplants
    (about ten years ago).

    Message: 5301
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Shit-Chat!
    Subject: Gordon and the Force
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 09:22:10

    *I* moved us to the mos?  I thought you did!  Oh well.  I
    must have uploaded my reply to the wrong SIG.  We can move back
    to m if you like, but not just fucking yet...

    > Do you think that opinion of the Fan Belt Installers is
    > justified, or is a lot of it due to turf battles?

            I'm sure a lot of it is because of turf.
            I have very mixed feelings about the law enforcement agencies and
    officers I've worked with and I've seen enough striking similarities between
    all the agencies I've had contact with to believe most of them fit the
    pattern I've seen.
            The vast, VAST, majority of line officers are there because they
    love the work.  They believe they are helping people and that's whey they
    became cops.  Unfortunately, by the time they're halfway through their
    careers (usually at about 8 to 12 years experience) they begin to either
    burn out, having been beaten down by a system that doesn't really care about
    them, or have so sublimated themselves to the desire for advancement that
    they will do whatever their superiors want.  And what their superiors
    usually want is to have their asses covered so they can retire in peace.
            I suspect the FBI fits this pattern, too.  I know it doesn't answer
    your question, specifically, but I hope it does in a general way.

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 81389
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Cliff-Falling $$
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 09:02:12

    > Also, if the government as we know it should fall, gold and
    > silver would still have its value.  The paper you LOVE would
    > have NONE...  NONE   NONE!!!!

    I think we'd agree that the USSR has pretty much fallen and folks there are
    still using rubles.  Granted, they're suffering from much inflation right
    now, but the rubles still represent value.

    Message: 81390
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: MLK Vote
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 09:02:36

    > We VOTED it down once, and we are going to get to vote on it
    > again...

    Does anyone know what, specifically, the new MLK initiative (or is it a
    referendum?) proposes?

    Message: 81391
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon-Platforms
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 09:03:09

    > I would propose a party constitution that's as watertight as
    > possible in requiring the elected representatives to respond to
    > the expressed and recorded wishes of the members.

    But then you open our government to abuse by the majority, something our
    founding fathers strove mightily to avoid, both through the judiciary and
    the Senate.  Just because the weenies in Congress are so worried about
    reelection they are already ruled by the latest poll doesn't mean we should
    institute the practice.

    Message: 81392
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: Rapping Paul
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 09:03:47

    > I think that there is a rather small cross section of humanity
    > that even understands rap "music", and I doubt that that cross
    > section carries too much weight, since they neither vote nor
    > come out of their fog long enough to reach out for reality.

    I hate to tell you this, Paul, but my kids listen to a fair amount of rap
    music and I like some of it.  There are several artists espousing good,
    solid -- even traditional -- values, including D.J. Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh
    Prince, and Hammer.  I even likes Salt N Peppa's "Let's Talk About Sex" (I
    think that was the official title.), even if it did make me a bit
    uncomfortable in the presence of my 10-year-olds.

    Message: 81393
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 10:40:53

    We still have the protection of the U.S. Constitution itself.  Nobody's
    suggesting abolishing that!

    Message: 81394
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: Entertainment Tonite
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 10:41:58

    No, I did NOT see Public Enemy's rap video, and I'm ticked off about that
    because yesterday's newspaper said it would be aired on *Entertainment
    Tonight*.  When I took the unusual (for me) trouble to switch the TV on at
    11:35 and watch the program, sure enough, it wasn't.  I hate being lied to.

    Public Enemy is quite entitled to express its opinion about Arizona.  I am
    sure their newly-released work is an important item of political commentary,
    to those persons who form their view of world affairs from rap videos.  In
    the meantime, I'm pleased to hear that MLK is on the ballot once again in
    November, thus giving the people of Arizona another chance to restate their
    position, whatever that may be.  Comment from elsewhere is welcome, but
    action from the State Legislature is not.

    Incidentally, my impression is that Public Enemy's video was directed
    chiefly at Mecham's high-handed action in canceling the MLK holiday.  If so,
    they're digging up ancient history.  Anything Mecham did is now irrelevant.

    However, Entertainment Tonight was not a complete waste of time.  I was
    interested to see on this program that the UK is now revisiting the old
    Bentley case with a view to a pardon.  Digging up executed criminals of the
    past and trying to exonerate them has become quite fashionable -- Evans and
    Hanratty in England, Sacco and Vanzetti in Massachusetts, and isn't it about
    time the authorities took a good look at Hauptmann?  The circumstances of
    Bentley's case do seem to justify reconsideration though.

    Message: 81395
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Bulletins
    Subject: Warning!
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 11:05:02

    I don't know how many users of this board live on the west side of Phoenix,
    but the following information is important to note anywhere.

    I have been advised that four black men are robbing homes in the area
    generally between Indian School Road and Camelback, and between 75th Avenue
    and 83rd Avenue.  Their method of entry is as follows:  One man goes to the
    rear of the house and one man to the front door, while the other two conceal
    themselves near the front door.  The man at the front door rings the bell
    and when the homeowner answers the bad guy shoves a handgun in the
    homeowner's face while all three rush in through the door.  One of them goes
    to a rear door and lets in the guy from the back yard.  While holding the
    homeowner at gunpoint they grab as much as they can and then they all
    rabbit.  My information does not include any vehicle seen or heard, though
    there probably is one.

    My information is that they have hit three or four homes in the area so far,
    though no one has yet been shot.  I also remember a similar modus operandi
    coming out of Tempe a year or so ago, and I don't think the perpetrators
    were ever caught.

    The moral of the story is "Don't open your door to strangers!"  And don't
    hesitate to call 911 if a stranger knocks on your door -- that's how
    burglars find out if a home is occupied.

    Message: 81396
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green Lantern
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 11:30:33

            There you go again, compairing FRNs to Gold/Silver.  What did a car
    in the 60's cost you?  What about in the 90's?  That is INFLATION.

            And once again..  I am not talking about BUYING gold or silver as an
    investment. I am talking about being paid wages in a currency of real value.

            Gordon's posts on 'VALUE' were fantastic!  I suggest you read them
    if you have not.

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

    Message: 81397
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Apollo/value
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 13:01:24

    I read Gordon's posts. I disagree.

    Message: 81398
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill/initiative
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 14:43:18

     It is an initiative, and, one would hope, that it is simply put that the
    state of Arizona shall designate the third Monday in January as a Martin
    Luther King Jr. day, yes or no.
     HOWEVER, having lived through some 29 years of Arizona politics, everything
    hoped for concerning same should be hoped for with tongue firmly planted in
    cheek.

    Message: 81399
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill rapping me
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 14:46:50

     So what's new?
     Actually, all the rap "music" I have heard has been mumbled in some
    language or other completely foreign and incomprehensible to me. Maybe it's
    my ears, but I don't think so. I wouldn't dream of spoiling your enjoyment
    of the stuff for a minute, even if it does make some sort of comment about
    your tastes. (smile)

    Message: 81400
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/video
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 14:49:22

    You watched the wrong thing, Gordon. Had you been watching channel 10 news,
    you would have had your fill of Public Enemy quickly, since the whole damm
    thing was played, beginning to end at 6 and again at 10, with a synopsis at
    5, just to whet some appetites. Yuck!

    Message: 81401
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Item's of interest
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:12:31

    You all must have seen the news of Bushes recent brush with
    death.  Make no mistake, it was NOT a case of flu, or
    anything else that simple.  It was nothing less then an
    attempt on his life by the BANKSTERS.  Think about it..he
    has presided over the ruination of a great many banks and
    imprisonment of their owners (he can be excused for
    protecting his son!!).  And recently he has been on a
    campaign to lower interest rates to lower and lower levels.
    With the lower rates comes lower profits for the banks.  The
    BANKSTERS find that absolutely unacceptable.  They would no
    more hesitate to kill him then they did killing Lincoln and
    JFK.

    Message: 81402
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Item's of INflation
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:13:20

    Recent news article detailed how Bush is going around the
    established MEDIA and taking himself, by satelite, directly
    to regional and local audiences.  They have built a studio
    near the WHite house for him to broadcast out of and they
    line up about 10 seperate "appearances" with regional/local
    newscasts and newscaster for about 3 minutes each.  During
    the Prime time local news they can hit all 10 in half an
    hour or so.  That avoids their concern of the National Media
    filtering what he says as the local newscasters are so awed
    by the chance to participate in a one on one session with
    the pres that they are more then willing to follow any
    script.
      Whether that is good or bad I'll leave to each to decide
    but it does conjure up the image from an old movie where the
    "Leader" is drugged and kept alive just enough to prop him
    up in his TV studio and have him address the nation while
    the "bad guys" (who I think were aliens from outer space)
    pull all the strings.  Is that where we are heading???

    Message: 81403
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: CLiff 1/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:14:06

    From Cliff>>>
            I am puzzled why so many of you seem so satisfied in getting paid in
    worthless FRNs, and not minding that they will lose value rather quickly or
    not minding to place these in a bank and pay taxes on the interest that does
    not even keep up with inflation at times.  By time you withdraw to spend
    them, they won't buy nearly what they would have a few years earlier.  I
    guess you people don't value your labor given for these FRNs.

    From Fred>>>
        And I am puzzled that you seem perturbed that you are
    paid in FRNs when all you have to do if you don't like them
    is to go buy gold with them.  I don't use FRN's to "store"
    value, I use them as a medium of exchange.  If I want to
    store value I will take my FRN's and buy something of value
    with them.  I guess I could conceivably buy gold but thank
    goodness I didn't 10 years ago when gold was selling for 800
    an ounce!!  Talk about a stable commodity......NOT.

    Message: 81404
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff 2/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:14:55

    Cliff Wants me to think about>>>>
            I don't understand how you think we would pay taxes to buy gold when
    the mere minting of gold is value added.  A million dollars of gold bullion
    turns out more than a million dollars in coin.  And that covers the minting
    costs.  The Government does not buy the bullion to keep it in some safe, but
    to pay it right out again as value added coin.

            Think about it!

    I've thought about it>>>>
          So the gvt "pays it right out again"!  They still had
    to buy it in the first place.  Follow this trail.  The gvt
    has no money.   The citizens each have 10 ounces  and there
    are 10 citizens (total of 100 ounces of gold).  The gvt says
    "I'd like to mint some money".  But the gvt has nothing with
    which to pay for the gold.  What they want to do is issue a
    one ounce gold coin for each citizen to use as money.  In
    order to "buy" the necessary 10 ounces of gold to turn into
    coins, they have to get some "money" somewhere and the only
    place they can turn is to the citizens.
        continued

    Message: 81405
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff 3/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:15:53

    Of course the citizens will not just hand the gold  over,
    they have to be sweet talked into it by something called a
    TAX.  The gvt has to TAX each citizen one ounce of gold.
    Now since we are dealing directly with gold with no FRNs
    involved, once they have TAXed the citizens they no longer
    need to "buy" gold, they now have the gold they need.  Now
    the situation is 10 citizens, each with 9 ounces of gold,
    and the gvt with 10 ounces of gold.  The gvt now mints the
    gold into one ounce coins.  Of course, they don't just throw
    the new coins out the back of a pickup truck, they use them
    to BUY things the gvt needs, like paper to print tax forms
    on.  The act of buying those things puts the coins into
    circulation and all is dandy until they have spent them all
    at which point the citizens each have 10 ounces of gold
    again and the gvt has none.
    Then they have to TAX once again only this time they may be
    paid the tax in mass gold or coin, but either way the result
    is the same.  It is an endless cycle.  The 10 ounces just
    keeps circulating over and over thru gvt hands. The gvt is
    NOT going to run for free and the gold money is NOT going to
    mysteriously appear out of thin air.
         continued

    Message: 81406
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff 4/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:16:58

        If gvt finds it cannot get by on a 10% tax on the money
    supply then it will, of course, raise the tax.  In any
    event, there is ALWAYS 5 ounces on average, under this
    scenerio, that is held by the gvt.  But there is nothing
    stopping the gvt, even on a gold standard, from taking 2 out
    of 10 ounces or 8 out of 10 ounces.  And, of course, if gold
    is being mined FASTER then the economy is growing then the
    gold money will be worth less and less as "excess" gold
    enters the marketplace of supply and demand.  The converse
    would also be true, if gold mining doesn't keep up with the
    economys growth the the gold will become worth more per
    ounce.  And as the value of gold drops, gvt will have to
    somehow take more of it, either as the natural effect of the
    same 10% on a greater supply or by just taking a bigger bite
    if 10% isn't enough.
          The idea you suggest of them minting MORE in coin then
    they collect in gold is simply fractionalization and is
    entirely dependent on the good will of gvt to not change the
    fractionalization level.  But the more they fractionalize,
    the more worthless the money becomes so I fail to understand
    why you would support it at all.  And it changes nothing
    anyways.  You STILL are taxed in order to provide coins.

    Message: 81407
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod 1/2
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:17:43

    Rod>>>
    If the people had equal control over the dollar supply then government would
    be forced to take an equal seat.  Government, by eliminating something of
    value to back our money supply has suckered us in and now has control.

    Fred>>>

        As long as gvt has the ability to TAX they have control,
    period.  Matters not a whit what form the money supply takes
    since gvt can, thru taxes, stake their claim to whatever
    amount they want thereby affecting the value of money.
    Feudal lords didn't need money to control the peasents, they
    set up their TAX in terms of so many chickens, so many
    bushels of wheat, so many whatevers, and the people paid as
    directed or they paid with their head.  Money, a medium of
    exchange, just makes life less complicted with or without
    intrinsic value.
        And speaking of intrinsic value, I failed to note in an
    earlier message about gold and diamond rings, that for all
    the twaddle about the "intrinsic" value of gold, people pay
    FAR more then golds intrinsic value, simply because it's
    shaped into a cirle that fits ones finger.

    Message: 81408
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod 2/2
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 15:19:41

    Rod, you said.>>>
        After having lost all of our precious and semi-precious
    metals we are beholden to the government that issues
    worthless paper FRNs that have no value unto themselves -
    not like gold and silver have.  We are controlled.

    Fred Asks>>
        How so?  I see lots of people with lots of semi-precious
    metals and gems all over the place.  Many have more
    "investment" on their hands then I do in the bank.  If you
    want to own gold what is stopping you??  The gvt would be
    collecting taxes with or without FRNs, gold would not
    protect you from that.
      Note, this and the previous message were posted in reverse order, this
    should have been 1/2 and the other 2/2.

    Message: 81409
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Fred
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:00:40

            You just don't get it Fred....  Love your FRNs all you want.

                            -clif

    Message: 81410
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Green
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:44:45

     GL>>I read Gordon's posts. I disagree.

    Are you going to tell us why?

    Message: 81411
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/apathy
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 17:49:14

    I wonder what exactly we mean by apathy.  I know the voters are "apathetic"
    because they stay away in droves.  If they truly are apathetic in the
    literal sense of the word -- if they really don't care one way or the other
    what politicians do -- then there's nothing to be done.  They already are
    expressing themselves politically, and very eloquently too.  But if it isn't
    true apathy, but something more like giving up in frustration -- defeatism,
    in other words -- that's different.  They *do* care.  They just don't
    believe they can make a difference.  More to the point, they don't see how.

    Message: 81412
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 18:35:17

     PS>>You watched the wrong thing, Gordon.

    Yeah, that's one of my problems.  I don't watch enough TV.

     PS>>Actually, all the rap "music" I have heard has been mumbled in some
     PS>>language or other completely foreign and incomprehensible to me. Maybe
     PS>>it's my ears, but I don't think so.

    No, it's not a foreign language.  Well, most of it isn't.  It's not your
    ears either.  And usually their speaking apparatus is functional in itself.
    The problem lies farther afield.  The tongue, vocal cords, lips and other
    muscles are connected to a set of motor nerves.  The nerves run upwards and
    backwards into the cranium, where they disappear into a bowl of chemical
    soup.  In the computer industry we call this "garbage in, garbage out".

    It's odd to think that "rap" was supposed to be short for "rapport".  Some
    of these groups are good, but a lot of them suffer from the classic delusion
    of foreign tourists.  They think that if other people don't understand what
    you're saying, it can't possibly be a communication problem.  All you need
    to do is say it louder.

    Message: 81413
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Jury Null 24/24
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:40:17

    RE:  your Jury Nullification posts

    I appreciate these very much, and have downloaded them for my permanent
    reference file.  I think they would be an excellent addition to the
    ibrary, if the sysops agree.  Thank you!

    Message: 81414
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Inflation
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:41:20

    GL> There is nothing wrong with this as long as wages keep pace with
    GL> inflation.  If I was making $1.10 and hour as I was when I graduated
    GL> from High School, I would be spitting mad. As it is, I am not, and I
    GL> don't mind a little inflation.

    But wages don't keep pace with inflation.  If they did, both members of a
    household wouldn't *have* to work these days in order to pay the bills.
    What you are calling "inflation" is the apparent devaluation of the
    currency.  What you should be looking at is the actual devaluation of your
    labor, and the fact that you cannot lawfully acquire superior right title
    and interest in what you purchase because you haven't paid any substance of
    value for it, and the fact that your children and their children are going
    to be in an even worse fix than people are today (if this situation
    continues), and the fact that in all likelihood the whole thing is going to
    come crashing down around our ears very shortly because the worthless frn
    cannot be propped up much longer.

    I get the feeling you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion
    lately.

    Message: 81415
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Easily fooled
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:42:48

    FS> Who are you trying to fool??  Seingiorage and the whole "bring me a
    FS> dollar and I'll give you a dollar" is a TAX pure and simple and if
    FS> they aren't bringing enough "mass" to cover the amount of coins
    FS> produced then they are using a fractional backing system of money.

    I'm not here to "fool" anyone, Fred, but I have to admit you do seem to be
    fooled.  I never said Seigniorage was not a tax, pure and simple, and I
    *did* imply, both in my message and with reference to yours, if I didn't say
    so outright, that using a coin with a face value greater than its bullion
    value was fractional backing.  I also pointed out that the actual bullion
    value (in U.S. dollars) was never less than 95% of its face value (in U.S.
    dollars).

    Now, having said that the above constitutes fractional backing, after
    further thought I have to retract that aspect of my statement:  Using a coin
    with a face value greater than its bullion value is *not* fractional
    backing, because using a coin with actual substantive value of its own
    doesn't *require* government backing -- it's value in trade exists
    independently of gov't so long as the standards of manufacture of the coin
    are maintained, whether they are maintained by gov't or by private
    individuals or companies.

    Message: 81416
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: The Mint 1/2
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:44:01

    FS> And even if they are NOT charged Seingiorage, they are STILL being
    FS> TAXED at a 100% level anyways since they have to bring IN one "dollar"
    FS> for every one "dollar" they leave with.

    I hate to say this, Fred, but now you aren't making any sense at all.
    People don't *have* to bring in their gold; they do it because the U.S.
    dollars in gold coin (or silver coin) has greater purchasing power than the
    same amount of U.S. dollars in gold bullion, even though the actual coins
    have about 5% less than a U.S. dollar's worth of bullion.

    Look, Fred:  Let's say you brought in a thousand U.S. Dollars worth of gold
    bullion -- by law that would be 25,800 grains of gold .9 fine -- to the
    mint.  The mint takes that gold and keeps 5% of it -- call that a tax if you
    want, call it seigniorage if you want, I don't care (but legally, it is
    called seigniorage).  That 5%, or 1,290 grains of gold .9 fine, goes to the
    U.S. Treasury.  The balance of 24,510 grains of gold .9 fine is allowed with
    5% copper to replace the gold removed and to improve the durability of the
    coins, and then the gold is rolled out flat and 1,000 U.S. dollar coins are
    punched and stamped (actually it would be 50 $20 gold pieces (Double Eagle)
    or 100 $10 gold pieces (Eagle) or 200 $5 gold pieces (half Eagle), since
    they don't mint single dollar coins in gold)
    [Continued]

    Message: 81417
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: The Mint 2/2
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:45:45

    You, the gold bullion supplier, then get 1,000 U.S. dollars in gold coins
    back from the mint in exchange for the 1,000 U.S. dollars in gold bullion
    you supplied.  In that exchange you have *lost* 5% of your gold bullion and
    had it replaced with copper -- but that loss is *more* than made up for by
    the greater tradeability (purchasing power), in the marketplace, of gold
    coins versus gold bullion.  So your actual loss is zero, and you may have
    gained (usually there was a gain of about 10% over gold bullion, so your net
    gain in purchasing power is normally about 5% over what you started with).

    Now:  the 5% kept by the gov't, that 1,290 grains of gold .9 fine, equals 50
    U.S. dollars in gold bullion (1,290 divided by 25.8 = 50).  The mint also
    mixes that gold with 5% copper, producing a mix totaling 105%, and thus
    punches and stamps out 52.50 U.S. dollars in gold coin, which then goes into
    the treasury.

    Who gets taxed?  Only the gold bullion producer, and he makes a 5% profit
    off the transaction.  No one else need be taxed -- this process very nearly
    fully supported the United States government for over a hundred years.  How
    did the money get into general circulation?  By the gold producer paying his
    employees and vendors with it, and they buying products and paying *their*
    employees with it, and by the U.S. gov't using the gold coin in its Treasury
    to pay its employees and vendors.

    Message: 81418
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: The Bottom Line
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:47:21

    Now, of course the minting procedure in the foregoing two messages would not
    provide enough to the U.S. Treasury for the U.S. gov't to engage in all of
    its modern day activities -- like welfare, HUD, HEW, foreign aid, aid to
    starving pornographers, etc., etc., ad nauseum.  But isn't it interesting?
    It has been estimated that 74% of the statutes in the 50 U.S. Title Codes
    are unConstitutional because the Constitution authorizes no such involvement
    by the U.S. gov't in the activities represented by those statutes.  If 74%
    of the activities of the U.S. gov't were abolished, gov't could get along
    just fine on the proceeds of seigniorage as described in the preceding two
    messages plus whatever revenue it could obtain from the lawful application
    of its taxation power over interstate commerce.

    Thus you see how, Fred, the problem is *not* corrupt gov't because gov't is
    always going to be as corrupt as its Treasury allows.  The problem is giving
    gov't an unlimited Treasury with which to further its corrupt designs on the
    people.  Get an honest and Constitutional monetary system as described in
    the previous two messages and you will have an honest and Constitutional
    government -- it cannot afford to be otherwise, and when it tries the people
    will show government it cannot afford to be otherwise.  On the other hand,
    try to get an honest and Constitutional gov't *without* correcting the
    monetary system, and even if you succeed gov't will restore its full measure
    of corruption and more just as quick as the people turn their back.

    Message: 81419
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: True Belief 1/2
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:48:33

    BB> What you've done is make it clear that you believe what you believe
    BB> simply because you believe it.

    No, what I've done is make it clear that I believe what I believe
    (pertaining exclusively to Mr. Lincoln's assassination) because of very
    strong suspicion in favor of it.  Perhaps that isn't, in itself, conclusive,
    but neither is it "simply because I believe it."  That very strong suspicion
    against the banksters, coupled with the very strong suspicion of a material
    nature in dozens of other situations, coupled with the knowledge -- not
    merely the belief, but the knowledge -- of the fraudulent nature of our
    current monetary system and who is getting more and more rich and powerful
    off of it (the banksters, both foreign and domestic) and who is getting more
    and more oppressed by it (the people who produce both the riches and the
    power by their labor) -- all of this combines to produce a very compelling
    reason to believe the banksters, particularly the foreign owners of the FED,
    have been behind many such events in the past and are now very nearly in
    full control of *every* political event, and will remain so as long as the
    people walk around with their heads in the clouds giving away their labor
    and then expecting their children to *pay* *it* *back*.
    [Continued]

    Message: 81420
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: True Belief 2/2
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:49:52

    BB> That sounds like faith, to me, and truly makes you a True Believer.

    Okay, whatever.  But I've done a lot of research just since starting this
    discussion in the last few months, and not only have I not found one single
    fact or event to disprove my thesis, I have found considerable reason to
    believe the problem is at least ten times worse than *I* thought it was.
    So, call me a "True Believer" if you want to, but recognize that I have
    presented a great deal of research data in favor of my belief, and factual
    historical data (not modern day Keynesian apologists the like of
    *Galbraith*, for God's sake!) is available for anyone to look up.  I have
    that on my side in the debate.  The True Disbelievers have presented nothing
    but argumentative questions and logical deductive reasoning based upon
    faulty premise and sometimes faulty reasoning, yet they remain True
    Disbelievers.  Which among us are being more "faithful" to our belief?

    Message: 81421
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Overwhelming???
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:51:07

    FS> I find it difficult to show much patience with people who choose to
    FS> interpet the laws in the way that best suits their own personal agenda
    FS> regardless of the overwhelming legal opinion and authourity that shows
    FS> them to be mostly in error.

    *What* "overwhelming legal opinion and authority that shows them to be
    mostly in error."?  List them.  Be specific, Fred.  Don't just assume that
    because you believe the way you do, that the courts have overwhelmingly
    validated your belief, because they haven't.  This comment of yours I quote
    above is totally without foundation in any of your posts to date, and I
    reject it.

    The remainder of your post #81360 doesn't make a whole lot of sense: the
    first part of the second paragraph is almost verbatim to what I said, like a
    five-year-old kindergartener repeating everything that is said to him in
    order to manipulate others into anger, and the last part takes off on a
    tangent that doesn't make any sense at all.

    If you have a viable point to make, Fred, just make it and cite some
    references as a foundation for it.  We don't need childish games here.

    Message: 81422
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/Galbraith 1/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:52:27

    FS> I read a little bit of Galbraiths "Money" and he starts with a short
    FS> history of, oddly enough, gold and bankers.

    Gaah!  You can read whatever kind of trash you want, Fred, but why don't you
    read the works of an *economist*, like Milton Friedman, for example, instead
    of a bankster- and Keynesian-apologist like Galbraith?  Better yet, why
    don't you read the works of Roger Sherman, who wrote the economic provisions
    of the U.S. Constitution and very clearly stated his reasons why in "A
    Caveat Against Injustice"?

    The problem both you and Matlock (as you quoted him) have is the thing
    Galbraith preys upon and takes advantage of in his promotion of Keynesian
    economics:  All three of you talk about the 'price' of gold, or the 'price'
    of silver, and the 'price' is always denominated in some other commodity of
    some value or no value.  Such discussions always make the baseline for
    measurement of value *something* other than gold or silver, if only for the
    moment of discussion, and yet people like Galbraith *know* the great selling
    point of Keynesian (debt-money) economics is the disinformation potential of
    rejecting the idea of any baseline at all other than "market-forces."

    By pretending that debt-money does not represent debt, and by pretending
    that nothing has any intrinsic value, a universe of examples can be

    Message: 81423
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/Galbraith 2/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:53:43

    generated to show how much "better" it is for a monetary system to have a
    non-intrinsic so-called "value" which fluctuates with the market.  It's like
    the old saying, "You can prove anything with statistics."  That's true as
    long as you have no rules about how "statistics" are collected or massaged
    for the purpose of creating a compelling argument for some ulterior motive.

    And yet, in every single case, if you take the argument presented by
    Galbraith and his ilk, look at *all* of the ramifications, even those
    downline in future generations resulting from what we do today, which
    Galbraith and his type rarely talk about or talk about only in vague, naive,
    glowing terms, you cannot help but begin to get suspicious if you have an
    ounce of integrity in your soul.  If you then take Galbraiths' argument and
    play the devil's advocate and realistically plug substance of intrinsic
    value into his equation -- ANY substance of intrinsic, enduring value -- the
    more obvious errors of Galbraith's Keynesian approach begin to appear.

    Then, if you *really* play the devil's advocate and *reject* his notion that
    nothing has any real intrinsic value, and actually apply gold and/or silver
    coin *not* as "just another commodity" but as *the* baseline reference for
    both the value of labor and the value of other commodities, everything falls
    into place and you see just how fraudulent and

    Message: 81424
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/Galbraith 3/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:54:58

    self-destructive Keynesian economics is *and* *is* *intended* *to* *be*.

    You find, for example, that SURE!  There have been times in various places
    that a sudden influx of great quantities of gold caused "inflation" in the
    prices of commodities, but that *it* *didn't* *matter* because wages went up
    at the same speed AND THERE WAS NO DEBT PASSED OFF ONTO FUTURE GENERATIONS!

    In other words, the same thing Green Lantern was talking about when he said
    he didn't mind a little inflation as long as his wages kept up.  But when it
    happens to frns, EVERYONE PAYS MORE LABOR FOR THE SAME PRODUCTS AND THEIR
    CHILDREN HAVE TO PAY THE LABOR BACK WITH INTEREST.  When it happens to gold
    and silver coins, everyone just pays more for products and they earn more in
    wages -- they don't find it any harder to earn a living; they don't find it
    necessary for the whole family to go to work to make ends meet; they don't
    owe anything to the banksters for any privilege they have exercised; and
    their children don't have to pay anything back.

    Furthermore, areas removed from the center of the inflation under a gold
    standard have a descending problem with inflation as the money leaves the
    center of population and trickles into the rural areas.  If the rate of
    increase in the influx of gold or silver stops increasing, the inflation
    stops and sooner or later the prices will wander up again as the medium of

    Message: 81425
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/Galbraith 4/4
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:56:04

    exchange gets trickled throughout the community or country or region.

    We had incredible "inflation" in the gold camps during the Gold Rush of
    1849.  But a hundred miles away, prices remained normal.  Averaged out,
    nationwide, we had no inflation worthy of the name, and we had NO DEBT to
    pass on to future generations.

    The huge inflation rate of England during the rape and plunder of the New
    World probably did cause them some serious problems, but if so it was not
    because of the inflation rate itself -- it was because the class-based
    society prevented the lower classes from receiving wages commensurate with
    the inflation rate.  The nobility was keeping the gold for themselves and
    not significantly improving the lot of the lower classes.  That didn't
    happen to any great extent in this country until the banksters got a
    strangle-hold on the economy again.

    If you're going to read Galbraith, for God's sake read some authors on the
    legitimate side of the fence and acquire a balanced perspective.

    Message: 81426
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: *Moral*????
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:56:54

    FS> The moral?  There's good and bad to everything including gold and
    FS> bankers.

    I found that comment a little startling.  After everything you said, I
    thought you were actually going to disparage the bankers, and rightfully so.
     Then you come out with that remark!  Do you actually think those bankers
    did any favors for the people in all the things they did?

    (By the way, in case you didn't know it, most of the "bankers" in those days
    were little more than goldsmiths.)

    Message: 81427
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 'Grats, Gordon
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:57:31

    Gordon, I seem to be getting into the habit of congratulating you on your
    very well thought out posts.  Congratulations again on your discussion of
    inflation and monetary policy.

    Message: 81428
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Deer hunting
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 19:58:09

    Anyone have any good ideas on good places to go deer hunting next fall?

    Message: 81429
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: MLK
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:37:53

    PS> It is an initiative, and, one would hope, that it is simply put that
    PS> the state of Arizona shall designate the third Monday in January as a
    PS> Martin Luther King Jr. day, yes or no.

    No.

    Message: 81430
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: TV/Rap
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:38:26

    Boy.  The way you guys have been talking, I'm sure glad I don't watch TV.

    Message: 81431
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Fred - #81401
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:39:09

    Fred:  Re your message #81401.

    Your are beginning to sound more and more like Matlock; that's just the kind
    of odious nonsense he would pull.  But I'll give you credit (if that's the
    word): if you are Matlock, you succeeded in fooling me for quite a while.

    Message: 81432
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff #81409
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:40:06

    Re: Fred's messages 81403 through 81407, to Cliff and Rod,

    Cliff> You just don't get it Fred....  Love your FRNs all you want.

    What do you want to bet Fred reads my posts explaining how seigniorage works
    in the Mint and accuses me of trying to pull one over on people because it
    sounds like something for nothing?

    What do you further want to bet that when he calls up the U.S. Mint and asks
    them, and they tell him the same thing I told him, he's going to accuse
    *THEM* of trying to pull the wool over his eyes?

    Who do you think will appear the more paranoid then?

    Message: 81433
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: The Flipside
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:41:25

    FS> As long as gvt has the ability to TAX they have control, period.

    Ah, but gov't doesn't have the power to tax, remember, Fred?  Not a Direct
    tax, Fred, not a tax on wages.  "No Capitation, or other Direct, tax shall
    be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore
    directed to be taken." (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4)  And the 16th Amendment
    provided for a tax on profit, not wages, because wages are not "income,"
    remember, Fred?  The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment conveyed
    "no new taxing power," remember, Fred?  The 16th Amendment was never
    intended to apply to wages according to the Congressional Record, remember,
    Fred?  And the 16th Amendment was never ratified in any event, remember,
    Fred?  [This is my opinion based upon my research.  I do not give legal
    advice.]

    I know you don't believe any of the above, Fred, but that figures; people
    who support a fraudulent monetary system like you do *have* to support a
    fraudulent and illegal tax system to go along with it, else the fraud of the
    monetary system would very quickly become obvious and the people would burn
    the palaces down and throw the self-appointed aristocrats into the moat.

    Message: 81434
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Frns/gun control
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:50:26

    I see great similarities between those who support the fraudulent and
    illegal debt money system, like John Kenneth Galbraith (and Fred) and those
    who support gun control, or if not similarities between individuals then at
    least similarities in methodology.

    Gun control proponents get attracted to their cause by their lack of
    knowledge about guns and about the real world, and about the carnage they
    see occurring around them.  They start off extremely naive, and the leaders
    of their movement take pains to ensure that they stay naive, and many of
    them do -- a great many of them would not recognize the real world if the
    gutter came up and slapped them in the face.  Yet, if they actually decide
    to determine the truth of the matter for themselves, it doesn't take them
    very long to see that in the real world, gun control doesn't work -- indeed,
    it is counter-productive.  Paxton Quigley, author of "ARMED AND FEMALE" is
    one of those; she worked on Kennedy's Gun Control Act of 1968 and when it
    passed, she and her friends sat back and waited for the improvement in the
    carnage that never came.  Meanwhile, while she could see with her own eyes
    that the incidence of violent crime was not improving as a result, her
    leaders, her 'idols,' kept saying "oh, yes, everything is getting better, of
    if it isn't, let's take it another step forward."  Pretty soon she decided
    to develop a little healthy skepticism and start doing her own research,
    which led to the aforementioned book -- one of the best, I might add.  In
    other words she told her propaganda artists to back off while she looked at
    the situation herself.  She discovered she had been lied to.

    Message: 81435
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Frns/gun control
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 21:58:35

    The question of a Constitutional versus Keynesian monetary system is the
    same way.  "Sophomores," by definition, are "wise fools."  They give life
    and legitimacy to the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
    They get suckered in to Keynesian economics, or gun control, and they buy it
    hook line and sinker.

    But sooner or later, unless there is a part of them that just must be told
    what to think and do, they (sometimes, at least) wake up and start looking
    at the facts and doing their own research and making their own evaluations.
    That's when they learn how dumb and naive they were.  That's when they learn
    about the real world.

    I mention this because it never fails to amaze me that those who support gun
    control don't know anything about the realities of their cause, and when
    they finally do find out, they stop supporting gun control -- unless they
    have a financial axe of their own to grind.  Likewise, those who believe in
    fraudulent debt-money and Keynesian Economics don't know anything about the
    realities of monetary systems or economics.  When they learn what really
    works, what the framers knew really works, and why, then they stop
    supporting fraud -- that is, unless they have a financial and/or political
    axe of their own to grind.  In which case they continue to perpetrate the
    fraud.  Galbraith has an axe to grind; it's called wealth and power.  Fred
    apparently has one too, though I still think there is a possibility he might
    become a junior or senior, instead of a sophomore, yet.

    Message: 81436
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Gordon/81378
    Date: 01/09/92  Time: 22:18:46

    Shouldn't that be "leader who praught hatred"  ???

    Message: 81437
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Another SIG?
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 05:07:19

    Could I interrupt here for just a moment to make a small suggestion? Thank
    you. Maybe I am standing all alone here, out in left field with a hockey
    stick in my hand, but, while these major discussions on the state of our
    economy and what is being done with it or about it was, at one time,
    interesting, it seems now that all has been said, most of it repeated, some
    several times. Frankly, it is getting quite tiresome, and the S key on my
    new keyboard is already showing signs of wear.
     Would it be at all possible to open a FINancial SIG, or some such, so that
    Archimedes, Fred and anyone else who is really interested in continuing this
    rather wordy, multimessage debate can do so while leaving the main board
    open for other things?
     Just a thought. Now I'll shut up and go back to my S key.

    Message: 81438
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 05:11:22

     That's a very good point, Gordon. It could very well be that the general
    public, taken one at a time, is more frustrated than anything else. In which
    case, what is sorely needed is someone with enough charisma to draw all of
    the individuals together into one humungous unit and lead us all into a more
    productive era of political, economic and social peace. Any contenders in
    mind?

    Message: 81439
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon, again
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 05:13:46

    "If other people don&t understand what you're saying all you need to do is
    say it louder."
     Ain't that the truth?!!!

    Message: 81441
    Author: Hiro Watanabe
    Category: Sorry, (Sniff)
    Subject: No good English
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 06:40:30

    So sorry.  My English very bad.  My teacher make me read New York Times.  I
    complain but in Japan nobody can hear you scleam.  That was joke.  You may
    laugh now.

    Message: 81442
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff 1/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 07:50:05

    Cliff suggests the following in a prior post>>>

    Gold and silver can also be used as a median of exchange.  Gold and silver
    can also be put in a bank.  Gold and silver can also be invested in property
    or anything else...  but where it differs from FRNs.. it in itself has REAL
    value....  And is not as subject to inflation as the paper stuff is.  Also,
    if the government as we know it should fall, gold and silver would still
    have its value.  The paper you LOVE would have NONE...  NONE   NONE!!!!

    To which I respond thusly>>

        I have never disagreed that Gold and Silver can be used as a Medium of
    exchange.  ANYTHING can be used as a medium of exchange.  What you have not
    presented any convincing argument for is why oh why would anyone want to
    use something valuable as a mediuim of exchange when something that is
    worthless works just as well??  So can we put the medium of exchange
    business aside, it is totally immaterial to much of what we are discussing.
    All that is necessary is that *whatever* is used is acceptable to the vast
    majority of the people participating in the economic system.
      As far as LOVE.  I love neither FRNs or Gold.  Each has it's use and I
    use each appropriately.

    Message: 81443
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: CLiff 2/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 07:51:12

    Clearly paper dollars are acceptable.  And I would even go
    farther and suggest that when the COST of converting to a
    GOLD monetary system were explained to people they would NOT
    wish to convert.

    As far as the idea of owning gold as some sort of greatly
    benefical way of protecting the fruits of your labor, lets
    look at what really might happen.  And keep in mind that the
    idea of "investing"  gold, as one invests FRN's, is a moot
    point since spending the gold you would earn to buy an
    investment is exactly the same as spending FRN's to buy the
    investment.

    If you have two laborers who are each paid in their desired
    commodity, one paid in gold (which will be figured in terms
    of FRN's at the current rate, just like now) and the other
    paid in FRNs and the both do exactly the same job and get
    paid exactly the same, just in different money (remember
    this is the real world, one doesn't get paid in 1991 FRN's
    while the other gets paid in 1901 gold)...continued

    Message: 81444
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff 3/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 07:52:10

        We would have these two fellows starting out even.  Now we can explore
    possible different courses that could result.  In one instance, they might
    both be living so close to the bone that they spend it as fast as they earn
    it.  In that case there will be no difference at all in what each has now
    or in the future.
        In another possible scenerio, they might each be able to live on 85% of
    their income.  That leaves them each with 15% to do something with.  Now
    under YOUR scheme, the gold guy hangs on to his gold, cherishing it, secure
    in the presumed knowledge that if an ounce of it will buy S&W 38 now it
    will still buy the same S&W 38 20 years from now.  The other guy takes his
    15% extra and for a couple of years saves it, possibly makeing or lossing a
    little in value but after, say 3 years, he still has about 40% of a years
    income socked away.  Then he takes those "worthless" FRN's and invests them
    in some sort of income producing property/business using leverage of a loan
    so that he controls and benefits from the income from the investment.  If
    he has chosen a good investment he finds that after 20 years has gone by he
    has property worth far more then 15% times 20 years of wages (which is all
    the gold guy has after 20 years)...continued

    Message: 81445
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: CLiff 4/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 07:53:18

        SO that comes to 3 years salary as an ace in the hole for the gold guy
    after 20 years, assuming gold has stayed perfectly stable.  In contrast,
    the other fellow, who invests half a years salary every 3 years. now owns
    most of the equity in his leveraged investment.  Historically, I would
    expect that he would double his original investment every 7 years over the
    long term.  So after the first 7 years his 40% of a years salary would
    become 80%.  After 14 years, 160%, and by 20 years it would be around 300%.
    Now add to that the fact that he does the same thing every 3 years just by
    saving the 15% of his salary and by the end of 20 years he has not only the
    first investment at 300%, but the second one that started at year 6 and the
    third one that started at year 9, and part of the fourth.  His accumulated
    assets now add up to at least 6 years of salary.  AND because his
    investment follows inflation, it is CURRENT salary, not the salary level
    from when he started investing.  For all your concerns about inflation,
    once he makes the investment, the value of his property and the income frm
    it more or less will rise and fall with everything else so inflation is not
    really a concern.  Remember, he is NOT dealing with FRNs under his
    mattress, he gets rid of those worthless things every 3 years!!!  Contrast
    this investor with the gold guy who after 20 years has the grand sum of 3
    years salary.  Continued....

    Message: 81446
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff 5/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 07:54:49

        And the gold guys three years salary is ALL he has.  It produces no
    continuing income.  The poor fool FRN guy has his investment almost paid
    off and will be able to retire and continue to gather investment income.
    And ALL this would be true even if their was NO inflation.  The person
    "holding" the gold will still be in a much worse position in 20 years then
    the person who makes reasonable investments.
        My point isn't particularly the specific amount the FRN guy comes out
    ahead, it is the fact that the person who INVESTs in something is the one
    who has the POTENTIAL to come out way ahead.  The person who chooses
    instead, to "plan" for the very unlikely event of global thermonuclear
    economic meltdown by "investing" in gold, is almost a sure fire loser in
    the end as he will never have more saved then whatever he can shave off
    what he earns in "wages".  And the event he is "planning" for is unlikely
    to happen.  Certainly far less likely then the chance the Investor has to
    advance his net worth and the investor, by contrast, has the sky as the
    limit.  As the tradeoff, he does take some risk, his investment could go
    sour.  As I said WAY back at the beginning of this, you don't see people
    get rich by accumulating and holding gold.  People get rich by investing in
    something.  The ONLY people getting rich off gold are gold traders, they
    understand that gold is nothing but another commodity to be bought low and
    sold high or handled in exchange for commission.

    Message: 81447
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon little
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 07:56:00

       Interersting posts on value and inflation Gordon but I don't agree with
    all your assumptions or conclusions.  For one thing, you seem to assume
    that inflation is ALWAYS the result of some gvt action and that the gvt
    wants inflation.  I see no basis for that assumption.  In many cases, the
    citizens want inflation.  It all depends on what you own and what it is
    specifically that is "inflating" versus what it is that's deflating.  But
    the idea that inflationis a hidden tax is only true if price inflation is
    always more then wage inflation and that has NOT always been the case.
       I think you also take too narrow a view of the economy as it seems you
    are treating it as if it is a "stable" or "dead" thing.  It is not.  It is
    constantly in a state of change and most of the time it is "expanding" in
    the sense that MORE people constantly joining it and MORE goods are
    constantly being added to it.  At least, we can be sure that there ARE more
    people.  The goal generally sought is for the economy to be able to absorb
    those people, for them to be able to afford goods, and therefore for more
    goods to be needed.  In other words, the classic expanding economy.
    Economist can easily show, whether you believe them or not, that a small
    inflation rate is a VERY positive way to maintain a well oiled economy and
    ensure it's growth.

    Message: 81448
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Cliff/Fred/last
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 08:09:52

    It's a waste of time, Cliff.  There's no help for the guy; he can't get his
    mind unlocked from its dependency on frns.  He can't see the enormous
    benefit to doing everything he talks about doing, but with a medium of
    exchange of intrinsic value instead of frns.  He can't see that by investing
    as he describes with frns, he winds up at the end owning nothing but debt --
    even if the person with gold did nothing with it, he'd be better off than
    that and so would the rest of the country.

    Oh, well.  We might as well let him learn the hard way.

    Message: 81449
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon/Green
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 08:26:28

    No.
    Too tired.
    Too lazy.
    I write enough at work.

    Message: 81450
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Archi/Paying Attenti
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 08:28:22

    on. You're right.

    Message: 81451
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon-It's My Party
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 09:17:52

    > We still have the protection of the U.S. Constitution itself.
    > Nobody's suggesting abolishing that!

    But if the courts have so badly mangled the Constitution as some claim (and
    virtually EVERYONE claims that; they only differ on specific issues), then
    what protection, really, is the Constitution?

    Nope.  The problem with American politics today is that we have people in
    Congress who fail to recognize when it is their duty to NOT do what the
    voters tell them and do what they judge best for the nation as a whole.  To
    make them even more beholden to the "people" (whoever they are) would just
    compound the problem.

    Message: 81452
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Alas, Poor Paul
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 09:18:18

    > Maybe it's my ears...

    I believe you're suffering from audiosclerosis, hardening of the musical
    tastes.  Bet you haven't heard anything decent since Glenn Miller went down,
    eh?  [BIG grin here]

    Message: 81453
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Arch is right-Sorta
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 09:19:13

    > the problem is *not* corrupt gov't because gov't is always
    > going to be as corrupt as its Treasury allows.  The problem is
    > giving gov't an unlimited Treasury with which to further its
    > corrupt designs on the people.  Get an honest and
    > Constitutional monetary system as described in the previous two
    > messages and you will have an honest and Constitutional
    > government -- it cannot afford to be otherwise, and when it
    > tries the people will show government it cannot afford to be
    > otherwise.  On the other hand, try to get an honest and
    > Constitutional gov't *without* correcting the monetary system,
    > and even if you succeed gov't will restore its full measure of
    > corruption and more just as quick as the people turn their
    > back.

    It's amazing how we can agree on so much, yet agree on so little.

    You're right on target here, Archimedes!

    Message: 81454
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Arch Believes!
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 09:20:16

    > So, call me a "True Believer" if you want to, but recognize
    > that I have presented a great deal of research data in favor of
    > my belief, and factual historical data...

    Here we part company.  I'm sorry, Archimedes, but you've presented a large
    number of bits and pieces that don't add up to the conclusions you ask us to
    join you in, at least not for me.

    And when you begin to question the motives of those who disagree with you it
    makes me doubt even more that you have the evidence needed to back up your
    theories.

    Message: 81455
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Archi/Fred
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:30:17

    Yes, it is a waste of time, and I have given up on Fred as a lost cause.
    He seems inable to grasp the fact that one could have the best of both
    worlds with a medium of exchange of intrinsic value.  In his way you *MUST*
    invest, and hope your investment pays off, and that tax does not eat all the
    real profit.  I still say there are not enough investment opportunities for
    every person in the U.S.  If everyone tried to invest...payback would be
    minimal at best.  There are also *RISKS* in investing that can clean you
    out.

    The currency needs to be of value so the people of this nation can *CHOOSE*
    their own way of life, liberty and freedom!  Not only is currency a median
    of exchange... it is also a median of stored labor.

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

    Message: 81456
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Politics
    Subject: FRNs today
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:44:56

            If FRNs today are such a GREAT and FANTASTIC form of exchange, then
    why are we in such a mess?  Why are banks failing right and left?  Why are
    people who are investing in bonds and other such things lossing their life
    savings?  After all, the Government has said all along, 'Trust us, nothing
    is wrong'.  This is the same government that sold (defrauded) us on the FRN
    idea to begin with.

            Mortgage payments are up this year. My city bill is up, my insurance
    is up, the electric bill is up, the phone bills are up....  Why?  Because
    the damn FRN is not worth anything.  My wages are down on the other hand.
    Sandy is busting her butt for minimum wage....  sigh, double sigh....

    Message: 81457
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Sorry, (Sniff)
    Subject: Paul Savage
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:47:09

    PS> ... while these major discussions on the state of our economy and what
    PS> is being done with it or about it was, at one time, interesting, it
    PS> seems now that all has been said, most of it repeated, some several
    PS> times. Frankly, it is getting quite tiresome, ...

    That's what happens when a discussion gets bogged down by one party totally
    ignoring any aspect of the argument which disproves his position, and just
    incessantly repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it
    hadn't been dissected, examined, and thoroughly disproven.

    Sorry you find it so boring.  I expect it is going to taper off now since it
    has become clear that Fred is incapable of progressing beyond the sophomore
    level of economics -- or knows better but desperately needs to defend the
    infrastructure of fraud for his own reasons in the face of all evidence to
    the contrary.

    As I say, it will probably taper off now.  But I will not allow false or
    fraudulent assertions to go unchallenged, and the discussion belongs right
    here -- everyone needs to know these things, or at least be exposed to them,
    for their survival.

    Message: 81458
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Final Message 1/4
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:48:26

    FS> What you have not presented any convincing argument for is why oh why
    FS> would anyone want to use something valuable as a mediuim of exchange
    FS> when something that is worthless works just as well??

    Because 1), it does *not* "work just as well."  2) it does not result in
    wealth for the producers of wealth; it results in debt for the producers of
    wealth.  3) it is not "worthless"; it is "WORTH" "LESS" than zero!

    I am as guilty as you are of conveying the impression that frns are
    "worthless," i.e., have zero value, and this has undoubtedly led to great
    confusion among the observers of our discussion.  I don't think it has led
    to any confusion on your part because I've come to believe you know what I
    am saying is true and are denying it because your perception of your
    "wealth" (which is not wealth at all, but is debt) depends upon it.  But
    frns are *not* worthless.  Frns are a *negative* value for the worker and a
    positive value for the worthless bankster and debt-monger: for every frn
    earned in honest labor, one U.S. dollar's worth of labor is owed to the
    Federal Reserve Bank *plus* *interest*.

    Read that again:  FOR EVERY FRN EARNED IN HONEST LABOR, ONE U.S. DOLLAR'S
    WORTH OF LABOR IS OWED TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK *PLUS* *INTEREST*.
    [Continued]

    Message: 81459
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Final Message 2/4
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:49:25

    I know that a person in your position just LOVES for a person in my position
    to work my tail off trying to provide for my family and get ahead in life
    and improve my standard of living, because every frn I earn by my labor
    means my children owe the Federal Reserve Bank one U.S. dollar's worth of
    their labor plus interest.  People like you make your living and improve
    your standard of living by trading and investing evidence of that labor debt
    and hopefully (from your point of view, not from mine) *increasing* your
    holdings of debt labor which the people must eventually repay.

    My position is this:  my valuable labor is *my* *property*, not yours and
    not the banksters' and not the gov'ts'.  I *demand* the honest fruits of my
    labor which is my property.  I *demand* to be secure from being paid for my
    labor with evidence of debt which my children -- everyone's children -- will
    have to repay with *their* labor and in the process incur even greater debt
    for *their* children.
    [Continued]

    Message: 81460
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Final Message 3/4
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:50:35

    I think you know damned well that what I say here is true.  I think you
    refuse to admit it because admitting it would force you to admit that your
    statement:

    FS> Economist can easily show, whether you believe them or not, that a
    FS> small inflation rate is a VERY positive way to maintain a well oiled
    FS> economy and ensure it's growth.

    and every other statement of this type you have made is an extremely slimy,
    cynical, avaricious and unprincipled attempt to perpetuate the fraud of the
    most massive con game scam in history from which you personally benefit and
    which is destroying our country, our liberty, and is likely to destroy most
    of our lives within the next ten years.

    The above-quoted statement is a *lie*:  A "small inflation rate" is of great
    value to the banksters and debt-mongers and their gov't shills like
    Galbraith who confiscate our labor and the labor of our children with it; it
    does nothing for the producers of our nation but erode their ability to
    maintain a living standard.  This above-quoted statement is a slimy, false,
    Galbraith-style come-on for those who know little or nothing about
    economics, but whom Galbraith and his ilk want to keep working for the
    benefit of 'the ruling class.'
    [Continued]

    Message: 81461
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Final Message 4/4
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:51:25

    Yet, hope springs eternal.  You *could* choose to change your mind.  You
    *could* choose to adopt a principled position.  You *could* choose to reject
    fraud and work to throw the con artists of tyranny out.  The choice will
    remain up to you, for now and from now on, or at least until the con game
    collapses -- but if you do not, that's when it will be *your* turn to pay
    the piper.  And I don't think the people are going to be very gentle about
    collecting.

    That's all I'm going to say on this subject unless you come out with another
    one of your Galbraith-style con-game come-on's designed to keep everyone
    confused and enslaved, or unless someone asks a question.

    Message: 81462
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: target
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:53:34

    Thank you!  Mmmm.

    Message: 81463
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Cliff/Fred
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:54:52

    Right on.

    Message: 81464
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: FRNs today
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 10:55:51

    Right on again.

    Message: 81465
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: FRNs/Gold
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:24:38

    RE: another sig - FRNs
        I couldn't agree more - it's just a constant rehash.  I don't plan
    on wasting any more time on it in view of the ad hominem attacks and
    invective filled messages that certain people fill the board with.

    Message: 81466
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Speaking of...
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:25:16

        Ad hominem - appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather then
    his intellect.

        Invective - Of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse:
    Denuncitory.  An abusive expression or speech.  Insulting or abusive
    language:  Vituperation

    Some examples from a scant 24 hours +- of Archi Medes messages:

    I get the feeling you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion
    lately.

    I hate to say this, Fred, but now you aren't making any sense at all.

    If you're going to read Galbraith, for God's sake read some authors on the
    legitimate side of the fence and acquire a balanced perspective.

    Your are beginning to sound more and more like Matlock; that's just the kind
    of odious nonsense he would pull.  But I'll give you credit (if that's the
    word): if you are Matlock, you succeeded in fooling me for quite a while.

    continued...(sorry to say)

    Message: 81467
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 2/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:26:06

    continueing.....

    What do you want to bet Fred reads my posts explaining how seigniorage works
    in the Mint and accuses me of trying to pull one over on people because it
    sounds like something for nothing?

    What do you further want to bet that when he calls up the U.S. Mint and asks
    them, and they tell him the same thing I told him, he's going to accuse
    *THEM* of trying to pull the wool over his eyes?

    Who do you think will appear the more paranoid then?

    I know you don't believe any of the above, Fred, but that figures; people
    who support a fraudulent monetary system like you do *have* to support a
    fraudulent and illegal tax system to go along with it, else the fraud of the
    monetary system would very quickly become obvious and the people would burn
    the palaces down and throw the self-appointed aristocrats into the moat.

    Continues yet again.............

    Message: 81468
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 3/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:26:42

    continuing......

    I see great similarities between those who support the fraudulent and
    illegal debt money system, like John Kenneth Galbraith (and Fred) and those
    who support gun control, or if not similarities between individuals then at
    least similarities in methodology.

    "Sophomores," by definition, are "wise fools."  They give life
    and legitimacy to the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

    Galbraith has an axe to grind; it's called wealth and power.  Fred
    apparently has one too, though I still think there is a possibility he might
    become a junior or senior, instead of a sophomore, yet.

    It's a waste of time, Cliff.  There's no help for the guy;

    That's what happens when a discussion gets bogged down by one party totally
    ignoring any aspect of the argument which disproves his position, and just
    incessantly repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it
    hadn't been dissected, examined, and thoroughly disproven.

    yes, it still continues......

    Message: 81469
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 4/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:27:18

    It continues but it's almost over......

    I expect it is going to taper off now since it has become clear that
    Fred is incapable of progressing beyond the sophomore level of economics --
    or knows better but desperately needs to defend the infrastructure of fraud
    for his own reasons in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

    As I say, it will probably taper off now.  But I will not allow false or
    fraudulent assertions to go unchallenged, and the discussion belongs right
    here -- everyone needs to know these things, or at least be exposed to them,
    for their survival.

    I think you know damned well that what I say here is true.

    and every other statement of this type you have made is an extremely slimy,
    cynical, avaricious and unprincipled attempt to perpetuate the fraud of the
    most massive con game scam in history from which you personally benefit and
    which is destroying our country, our liberty, and is likely to destroy most
    of our lives within the next ten years.

    Continues ... but there's only one more to go......

    Message: 81470
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 5/5
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:27:49

    It finally ends.....

    This above-quoted statement is a slimy, false, Galbraith-style come-on
    for those who know little or nothing about economics, but whom Galbraith
    and his ilk want to keep working for the benefit of 'the ruling class.'

    That's all I'm going to say on this subject unless you come out with another
    one of your Galbraith-style con-game come-on's designed to keep everyone
    confused and enslaved, or unless someone asks a question.

    Gaah!  You can read whatever kind of trash you want, .......

    Message: 81472
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Fred
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 20:50:28

            Fred, before you point fingers..  You might read your post 81363
    where you say what we believe is just 'crap'.  If you want to talk about
    insulting...

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

    Message: 81473
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: ((SHIELDS))
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 21:00:22

            It is amazing how 'Hiro Watanabe' can log in, and answer posts
    without reading posts...

            This System is closed to the Public till I find out who he is.
    ((SHIELDS)) are at 100%

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

    Public Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit Chat

    Subject:Hiro Watanabe

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Yes, another President Bush double died in your land.  I enjoyed your short
     2:but pleasant post.  It is posts such as yours that makes life interesting.
     3:They give us a break from the norm.  Thank you.
     4:
     5:This reminds me of a true story.  During our intense drug debate of a year
     6:or two ago here on Apollo I made a rather nice little booklet using the
     7:actual messages.
     8:
     9:But for levity I included a short message from a user such as yourself that
    10:had absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate.  It was the only such
    11:message in the entire booklet, all others were were on the main subject.
    12:
    13:I sent many copies off to various people, council members, prison inmates,
    14:citizens, etc..  And I received a reply from a fellow in an Arizona prison
    15:who was doing eight years for selling marijuana.  His only comment was to
    16:ask me if I had any more posts from this same author, somelike much like
    17:you, I might add.
    18:
    19:So again thank you.                     -Rod
    20:
    21:P.S.  Are you perhaps any relation to the Nakasaki Watanabes?
    22:
    2 lines left
    23:P.P.S.  Take good care and I enjoyed your message.
    1 line left
    24:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 81474

    Public Bulletin Board command:$RC

    Press  to abort

    Message: 81473
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: ((SHIELDS))
    Date: 01/10/92  Time: 21:00:22

            It is amazing how 'Hiro Watanabe' can log in, and answer posts
    without reading posts...

            This System is closed to the Public till I fi

    Message: 81474
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hiro Watanabe
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 01:25:26

    Yes, another President Bush double died in your land.  I enjoyed your short
    but pleasant post.  It is posts such as yours that make life interesting.
    They give us a break from the norm.  Thank you.

    This reminds me of a true story.  During our intense drug debate of a year
    or two ago here on Apollo I made a rather nice little booklet using the
    actual messages.

    But for levity I included a short message from a user such as yourself that
    had absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate.  It was the only such
    message in the entire booklet, all others were were on the main subject.

    I sent many copies off to various people, council members, prison inmates,
    citizens, etc..  And I received a reply from a fellow in an Arizona prison
    who was doing eight years for selling marijuana.  His only comment was to
    ask me if I had any more posts from this same author, much like
    you, I might add.

    So again thank you.                     -Rod

    P.S.  Are you perhaps any relation to the Nakasaki Watanabes?

    P.P.S.  Take good care and I enjoyed your message.

    Message: 81475
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Economy 101
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 01:36:29

    By the way, I have perhaps 300K of messages to read, going back into last
    week.  On top of that I have been super busy.  In fact today I was doing a
    job when my pager went off and the female voice said:  "Help, I locked my
    keys in my car and the engine is running, please call me as soon as possible
    at (Tel#   )."  Okay, so I imediately went to the nearest phone and dialed
    the number.  A recording came on informing me that if I wished to make a
    call that I might try dialing 1 + area code.  I re-dialed the number
    thinking I may have dialed wrong.  Again the same recording.  So, I then
    dialed 1 + area code and the number.  This time a recording informed me that
    the number I was dialing was not a long distance call.

    So, what happened is this:  Many phones located at convenience markets and
    the like can be used to dial out but will not process incoming calls.
    This girl was most probably at one of these phones.

    About twenty minutes later my pager went off again and the same female voice
    was pleading that I call as her engine was running.  She gave the same
    number.  For the hell of it I tried again with the same results.

    There was nothing I could do.  I wonder how it turned out?

    If you ever find yourself in this position, at a bank of phones, call from
    one to the other to test for ringing capability.  Then use that one. -Rod

    Message: 81476
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Econ. 102 1/2
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 01:39:44

    Let's all take a vacation from economics for a period.  In that way we each
    can go over what was discussed.  I know that I was made aware of useful
    knowledge and I know that all hasn't completely 'jelled'.  This process
    takes a while.

                                    Rod

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